Appeal 2006-0870
Application 10/301,512
48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fritsche (U.S. Patent 6,855,554) in view of
Alam (US Published Patent Application 2001/0034066) (Answer 2-4).
Appellants responded with a Reply Brief in which they included arguments
responding to the new ground of rejection (Reply Brief 1-8). The Examiner
entered this Reply Brief and stated that it was considered (Reply Brief Noted
Nov. 30, 2005), however, the Examiner did not make of record any response
to Appellants’ new arguments.
In order to fully develop the issues on appeal, the Examiner must
respond to Appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we remand the application
to the Examiner, via the Office of a Director of the involved Technology
Center, for the entry into the record of a response to Appellants’ new
arguments presented in the Reply Brief at pages 1-8 or for other action not
inconsistent with the above discussion.
This Remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) is
made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(2) applies if a supplemental examiner's answer is written in
response to this Remand by the Board.
REMANDED
sld
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP
600 CONGRESS AVE.
SUITE 2400
AUSTIN, TX 78701
2
Page: Previous 1 2
Last modified: November 3, 2007