Appeal No. 2006-0597 Page 3
Application No. 09/682,876
pages 23-24), although no objection or rejection on this basis has
been made in the Answer (see the Answer, pages 1-12). We note that
the examiner has indicated that “this rejection was made in the May
25, 2004 response to the April 5, 2004 amendment” but does not
repeat any such rejection in the Answer (Answer, page 23).
Rejections not repeated by the examiner in the Answer are
considered as dropped or withdrawn. See Paperless Accounting v.
Bay Area Rapid Transit Sys., 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231 USPQ 649, 652
(Fed. Cir. 1986). We also note that appellant expresses his
uncertainty about “this ground of rejection” (Reply Brief, page 1).
These actions by the examiner in the Answer are consistent
with the final Office action dated Nov. 1, 2004, where the examiner
“objected to” the amendment dated Aug. 25, 2004, because it
introduced “new matter” into the disclosure but no ground of
rejection was made (final Office action, page 2). Similarly to the
Answer, the examiner in the final Office action only discusses the
“new matter rejection” involving ¶[0045] of the specification in
the “Response to Arguments” (page 13) section but fails to set
forth or repeat any rejection.
“A rejection of claims is reviewable by the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, whereas an objection and requirement to
delete new matter is subject to supervisory review by petition
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007