Appeal 2007-0109 Application 10/741,895 After considering the record before us, this appeal is not ready for meaningful review. Accordingly, we remand this application to the Examiner to consider the following issues, and to take appropriate action. In accordance with the discussion at pages 2 and 3 of the Answer, the Examiner has indicated withdrawal of certain grounds of rejection, even though they have not been specified. Presumably, as noted by Appellants at page 8 of the Rely Brief, this applies to the rejections set forth in the Final Rejection. The Answer then proceeds to set forth three new grounds of rejection in-part relying upon newly applied prior art. First, in contrast to the Final Rejection, the present rejections set forth as new grounds of rejection in the Answer do not include any rejection of claims 3 and 14 on appeal. This is significant since claim 14 is considered or otherwise construed as an independent claim by its recitation of an electronic device according to the method of independent claim 1 on appeal. Thus, since independent claim 1 has been newly rejected on existing prior art, we would expect that independent claim 14 should be rejected in the same manner. This omission and that with respect to claim 3 appear to be inadvertent. In any event, Appellants requested allowance of these claims at page 8 of the Reply Brief. Since the Examiner’s subsequent communication 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013