Appeal 2006-3398
Application 10/132,199
appealed these claim rejections to the Board. In particular, Appellants characterize
dependent claims 2-16 and 18-30 as “non-appealed claims” and state that “only the
independent claims 1 and 17 are appealed” (Br. 4, 8) As such, the only rejection
before us is the rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parkander and Belec. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
With regard to the non-appealed claims, 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) states,
An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been
twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the
primary examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, having once paid the fee for such appeal.
37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a)(1) provides that the notice of appeal must be filed
“within the time period provided under § 1.134 of this title for reply.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.134 provides,
An Office action will notify the applicant of any non-
statutory or shortened statutory time period set for reply
to an Office action. Unless the applicant is notified in
writing that a reply is required in less than six months, a
maximum period of six months is allowed.
The Examiner issued the Office Action from which this appeal was taken on
February 2, 2005, which gave a three month shortened statutory period and a total
of six months, including extensions of time, within which to reply. Because
Appellants’ time for reply to, or appeal of, the rejections of claims 2-16 and 19-30
has passed, these claim rejections stand.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013