Appeal No. 2006-1023
Application No. 10/275,859
Examiner must meet an equivalent standard, because the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences is a board of review and not a vehicle for initial
examination. See 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2000).
Further, the Examiner should provide a discussion of the arguments
presented by Appellants in the Briefs to the extent that the arguments remain
applicable. In light of the above facts, we feel it is premature to decide this
appeal. The Appellants should be given an opportunity to respond on the
record. Particularly, the Examiner is required to point out on a limitation by
limitation basis which claims of the cited references correspond to the
limitations recited in the rejected claim. It is important that ambiguous or
obscure bases for decision do not stand as barriers to a determination of
patentability.
provides arguments regarding the obviousness-type double patenting of claim 6 over claims
1-12 of Application No. 10/181,919. (Brief, pp. 9-10; Reply Brief, pp. 3-4).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007