Appeal 2006-2744
Application 09/664,794
Patent 5,584,962
For the above-stated reasons, we remand this application so that the
Examiner can address on the written record the issues of whether reissue
claims 36-48 (1) are unpatentable over Matsuo and therefore (2) do not
avoid recapture by a materially narrowing limitation. In addressing these
issues, the Examiner must provide the written record with a detailed
explanation of why Matsuo does or does not render unpatentable each of
claims 36-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (anticipaton) or § 103(a)
(obviousness) or § 251 (recapture).
This remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) is
not made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(2) does not apply.
Order
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 36-48 is reversed.
The application is remanded to the Examiner.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
cam
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
P. O. Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
25
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Last modified: September 9, 2013