Appeal 2007-0014
Application 10/202,227
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
I concur with the majority and write separately with an additional
observation. "When the nature of . . . subject matter [to be patented] admits of
illustration by a drawing and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the
Director may require its submission. . . ." 35 U.S.C. § 113. "Whenever the nature
of the subject matter sought to be patented admits of illustration by a drawing . . .
and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the examiner will require its
submission. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.81(c).
Here, I believe that the Appellant's claimed subject matter admits of
illustration to facilitate understanding of her invention. In particular, a depiction of
where "features defining an electronic document to be created" are input would
facilitate understanding of step (a) of claim 1. Also, a depiction of the relations
among the "electronic document to be created," the "electronically stored
document case base," the "document . . . substantially matching the inputted
features," and the "electronic document to be used in creating a new electronic
document" would facilitate understanding of the relation among steps (a) through
(d) of the independent claim.
In an ex parte appeal, however, the Board "is basically a board of review C
we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi,
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013