be directly affected by or have a bearing on the decision in the pending appeal is incorrect. Appellant’s brief (p. 1) contains a clear statement that there are no such appeals or interferences. Moreover, in section (4) on page 2 of the answer, the examiner simply states that appellant’s statement of the status of amendments after final rejection contained in the brief is correct, without confirming whether the amendment filed with the brief has been entered, a question left open in appellant’s statement. The examiner’s initialed notation on the copy of the amendment entered into the electronic record August 10, 2005 indicates that the amendment has been entered, but the examiner should have indicated such in section (4) of the answer. The provision of such information is, after all, the purpose of that section. The examiner’s remarks in section (4) were of no informative value. Furthermore, the examiner’s answer does not restate the rejections, instead simply referring to the final rejection. As provided in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1207.02, “[a]n examiner’s answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully restating the point relied on in the answer.” Moreover, the examiner’s answer does not even include the examiner’s position and response to appellant’s arguments, once again referring to the final rejection. Consequently, the answer in this case provides absolutely no useful information in explaining the status of the application, the rejections on appeal or the examiner’s position in response to appellant’s arguments. The deficiencies in the answer noted above provide more than sufficient justification for remanding the application to the examiner and requiring an answer in compliance with 37 CFR § 41.39 and MPEP §§ 1207 through 1207.02. Nevertheless, in the interest of administrative efficiency and fairness to appellant, we have entered a decision on the merits of this appeal.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007