Ex Parte Carpenter et al - Page 2


                Appeal No. 2006-0419                                                                                                     
                Application 09/798,672                                                                                                   

                        The statement of the “Status of Claims” in the brief includes claim 24 (page 3) as does                          
                the Notice of Appeal filed November 2, 2004.  However, appellants do not include in the brief                            
                either of the above grounds of rejection under “Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal”                           
                (pages 4-5), but state that “[t]he patentability of claim 24 stands or falls with the patentability of                   
                claim 19” under “Grouping of Claims” (page 5)                                                                            
                        The examiner erroneously states that appellants’ “statement of the grounds of rejection is                       
                correct” (answer, page 2), and does not otherwise point out the deficiency in the brief with                             
                respect to the grounds of rejection of claim 24.                                                                         
                        37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vi) and (vii) (September 2004) provide that the appeal brief must                           
                set forth a “statement of each ground of rejection presented for review” and “[t]he contentions of                       
                appellant with respect to each ground of rejection presented for review in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of                       
                this section,” respectively.  See also MPEP § 1205.02 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005;                                     
                1200-14 – 1200-15).  Where appellants do not present a ground of rejection for review in the                             
                brief, the appeal is considered to be withdrawn with respect to that ground and the “withdrawal                          
                is treated as an authorization to cancel the withdrawn claims.”  MPEP §§ 1214.05 and 1215.03                             
                (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).                                                                                          
                        37 CFR § 41.37(d) (September 2004) provides that appellants will be notified of any                              
                deficiency in the brief under the rules and provided with the opportunity to correct the                                 
                deficiency. See MPEP § 1205.03 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).                                                           
                        Accordingly, the examiner is required to take appropriate action consistent with current                         
                examining practice and procedure to notify appellants of the deficiency in the brief with respect                        
                to the ground of rejection of appealed claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) that we have discussed                          
                above and provide appellants with the opportunity to cure the same in order to avoid withdrawal                          
                of the appeal and its consequences with respect to this claim, with a view toward placing this                           
                application in condition for decision on appeal with respect to the issues presented.                                    
                        This remand is not made for the purpose of directing the examiner to further consider a                          
                ground of rejection.  Accordingly, 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) (2005) does not apply.                                           
                        We hereby remand this application to the examiner, via the Office of a Director of the                           
                Technology Center, for appropriate action in view of the above comments.                                                 


                                                                  - 2 -                                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007