Appeal No. 2006-2169 Page 4
Application No. 09/899,919
We also note the appellant’s request that we "reverse the rejections of the claims
and to pass this application to issue." (App. Br. at 20.) In an ex parte appeal, the Board
"is basically a board of review C we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners."
Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (B.P.A.I. 2001). While we have authority to
reverse rejections, we lack authority to "pass this application to issue." (App. Br. at 20.)
Patent examiners have the authority to pass applications to issue. M.P.E.P. §§ 1005,
1302.13. That said, our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 1 and 2
• claim 3
• claim 4.
A. CLAIMS 1 AND 2
"[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's brief to the Board
must contain a clear statement for each rejection: (a) asserting that the patentability of
claims within the group of claims subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together,
and (b) identifying which individual claim or claims within the group are separately
patentable and the reasons why the examiner's rejection should not be sustained."
In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
37 C.F.R. §1.192(c)(7) (2001)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007