The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ALEX IGNATIEV, XIN ZHANG,
JIAN MING ZENG, JIASHU LIU, PENCHU CHOU
and LOUIS D. CASTELLANI
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0493
Application 10/206,123
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand the application to the Examiner for consideration and explanation of issues
raised by the record. 37 CFR §41.50(a)(1) (2005); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1211 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).
The official electronic files of the USPTO show that Appellants filed a paper styled
“Appellant’s Response To Examiner’s Answer (37 CFR 1.193(b)” on August 3, 2005, which is
in fact a reply brief “in response to the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 3, 2005” (page 1).
The official electronic files further show that in the Office communication mailed August
9, 2005, Technology Center 1700 held Appellants’ submission to constitute a “Pre-Appeal Brief
Request for Review.”
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007