Appeal 2006-2158
Application 09/853,391
the body of the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 102, but this reference is not
mentioned in the statement of this or any other rejection.
Because the rejections advanced in the Answer have not been
responded to in any Brief and it is unclear whether Appellants were fully
apprised of the specific grounds of rejection, this appeal is not ripe for our
review, and we remand for further consideration of the rejections and
clarification of the record.
This Remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) is
made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(2) applies if a supplemental examiner's answer is written in
response to this Remand by the Board. A supplemental examiner’s answer
may include a new ground of rejection, but it must be made in accordance
with the requirements enunciated in MPEP 1207.03(I)(8th ed., Rev. 5, Aug.
2006). If the Examiner files a supplemental examiner’s answer, Appellants
must respond in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b) by either requesting
reopening of prosecution before the Examiner or by filing a reply brief to
maintain the appeal. To avoid confusion, the reply brief must stand in place
of the Brief and address each ground of rejection enunciated in the
supplemental answer in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37.
We ORDER this application
REMANDED TO THE EXAMINER
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013