Appeal No. 2006-1474
Application 10/219,095
should be avoided. Thus, we remand the application to the examiner to select the best
rejection or rejections of the many alternatives posited in the final rejection of March 26,
2004, and incorporated by reference in the answer mailed May 20, 2005.
3. The last item of concern relates to the reply brief filed July 11, 2005. The reply brief
includes 7 pages of argument and comments concerning the alternative rejections
maintained by the examiner and separately addressing the examiner’s various positions
with regard to those alternative rejections as set forth in the answer. In response to the reply
brief, the examiner sent out a communication (mailed September 12, 2005) informing
appellant that the reply brief had been “entered and considered” and that the application
was being forwarded to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for decision on the
appeal. Our problem is that the examiner’s pro forma response is woefully inadequate in this
particular case, since it fails to provide us with his/her views concerning the numerous and
specific arguments presented by appellant in the reply brief filed July 11, 2005. Thus, we
REMAND the application to the examiner for a response on the record to the arguments and
issues raised by appellant in the reply brief.
This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1) (effective September 13,
2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7,
2004)) is made for further consideration of a rejection.
Accordingly, 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) applies if a supplemental examiner's answer is written in
response to this remand by the Board.
This application, by virtue of its "special" status, requires immediate action, see
MPEP § 708.01 (item D), Eighth Edition, Rev. 33, August 2005.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007