Appeal No. 2006-1093
Application No. 09/842,471
examiner's rejection of claims 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 55. Therefore, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-55 is affirmed-in-part.5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/jaj/rwk
5 As an ancillary observation, we note that (1) no antecedent basis exists for "said PROM" in
claims 33 and 53, and (2) no period exists at the end of claim 51. Because the parties did not
raise these issues on appeal, they are therefore not before us. In an ex parte appeal, "the Board
is basically a board of review − we review…rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte
Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2001). Consequently, we leave the issue
of whether the appellant has satisfied the requirements of MPEP §§ 2173.05(e) and 608.01(m) to
the examiner and the appellant.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007