Appeal No. 2006-0443 6
Application No. 10/347,273
Third, the examiner should determine whether claims 20-22 and 27 should be
considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in the absence of a
definition for “M” in the claims.
In view of the foregoing, we remand the application to the examiner, and require
that the examiner take appropriate action consistent with current examining practice to
further consider the grounds of rejection in view of our remarks, supra.
This application, by virtue of its “special status”, requires immediate action on the
part of the examiner. See MPEP § 708.01 (8th ed. Rev. 4, Feb. 2005). It is important that
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences be promptly informed of any action
affecting the appeal in this case.
This remand is made for the purpose of directing the examiner to further consider
the grounds of rejection. Accordingly, if the examiner submits a supplemental answer to
the Board in response to this remand, “appellant must within two months from the date of
the supplemental examiner’s answer exercise one of” the two options set forth in 37 CFR §
1.41.50 (a)(2)(2005), “in order to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as to the claims
subject to the rejection for which the Board has remanded the proceeding”, as provided in
this rule.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007