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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 KIM KWEE NG, pro se
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0802
Application 10/151,141
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and KRATZ, 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 record shows that the following grounds of rejection were of record in the final
action mailed December 4, 2003 (final action), and maintained by the Examiner on appeal in the
examiner’s answer mailed October 5, 2005 (answer):
claims 11 through 15, 19 through 21, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (final action, pages 2-3;
answer, page 4);
claims 10 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiecker in
view of Ross (final action, pages 3-4; answer, page 5);
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007