Appeal Number: 2006-2607
Application Number: 10/004,738
1 in the Final Rejection mailed April 21, 2004. We advise the Examiner that the
2 technology known as cut and paste that could have put the Answer in compliance
3 with the MPEP. “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”
4 SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320, 78 USPQ2d
5 1097, 1103 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
6 The Appellants contend that the Examiner acted improperly in making the
7 most recent rejection final (Br. 7). However, this relates to a petitionable matter
8 and not to an appealable matter. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57, 179
9 USPQ 46, 51 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566,
10 568 (CCPA 1967). See also the MPEP § 1002.02(c), item 3(a) and § 1201. Thus,
11 the relief sought by the Appellants would have been properly presented by a
12 petition to the Commissioner under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 instead of by appeal to this
13 Board. Accordingly, we will not further consider this issue.
14 Claims 2-9 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
15 as rendering the claimed subject matter indefinite.
16 Claims 2-9 and 15-211 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
17 Amos, Watanabe, and Richardson.
1The Examiner stated that claims 2-9 and 15-29 (Answer 4) are rejected, but there1
are no claims in the application above claim 21. The Examiner indicated that
claim 21 is included in the rejection, and the Appellants argued claim 21.
Therefore, we treat this rejection as including claims 15-21.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013