Appeal No. 2006-2051
Application No. 10/396,955
They thus pertain to Appellants’ own disclosure of their
invention.
If the Examiner wishes to maintain the instant rejection,
the Examiner must accordingly provide a supplemental Examiner’s
Answer in which the Examiner correctly applies the proper
requirements, as prescribed under current patent law.
CONCLUSION
This remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1)
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 an immediate action. See MPEP § 708.01 (8th ed., Rev.
3, August 2005). It is important that the Board be informed
promptly of any action affecting the appeal in this case.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007