Appeal 2006-1502
Application 10/288,027
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vi) and (vii) (2005) provide that the Brief
must set forth a “statement of each ground of rejection presented for review”
and “[t]he contentions of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection
presented for review in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section,” respectively.
See also MPEP § 1205.02 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005). Where Appellant
does not present a ground of rejection for review in the Brief, the appeal is
considered to be withdrawn with respect to that ground and the “withdrawal
is treated as an authorization to cancel the withdrawn claims.” MPEP §§
1214.05 and 1215.03 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(d) (2005) provides that Appellant will be notified
of any deficiency in the Brief under the rules and provided with the
opportunity to correct the deficiency. See MPEP § 1205.03 (8th ed., Rev. 3,
August 2005).
Accordingly, the Examiner is required to take appropriate action
consistent with current examining practice and procedure to notify Appellant
of the deficiency in the Brief filed August 12, 2005, with respect to the
ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement, and provide Appellant with the opportunity to cure
the same in order to avoid withdrawal of the appeal and its consequences
with respect to appealed claims 7 and 8, with a view toward placing this
application in condition for decision on appeal with respect to the issues
presented.
This remand is not made for the purpose of directing the Examiner to
further consider the grounds of rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(2) (2005) does not apply.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007