Appeal No. 2006-1321
Application No. 09/838,866
and entry” of the reply brief or pursue other actions noted in
the rule. Since the examiner has not complied with the
requirements of the rule, we remand for clarification concerning
the status of the two reply briefs and a clear indication on the
record as to whether the reply briefs were actually entered and
considered. Moreover, we request that the examiner provide a
response on the record to the arguments advanced by appellant in
the reply briefs.
Another issue to consider on remand is whether the
examiner’s answer contains a new ground of rejection and
therefore requires approval by a Technology Center (TC) Director
or designee (MPEP § 1207.03). Regarding this aspect of the
remand, we direct attention to the reply brief filed November 12,
2004 (page 10) and appellant’s comment therein that a ground of
rejection specifically disclaimed in the final rejection is now
being maintained in the examiner’s answer.
Assuming that a supplemental examiner's answer clarifying
the issues discussed above will be necessary in response to this
remand, it follows that appellant may exercise one of the options
set forth in 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007