Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 REMARKS
2 The Appellants requested reconsideration of the outstanding restriction against
3 claims 1-4 (Br. 7). However, this relates to a petitionable matter and not to an
4 appealable matter. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57, 179 USPQ 46, 51
5 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA
6 1967). See also MPEP § 1002.02(c), item 3(a) and § 1201. Thus, the relief sought
7 by the Appellant would have been properly presented by a petition to the
8 Commissioner under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 instead of by appeal to this Board.
9 Accordingly, we will not further consider this issue.
10 DECISION
11 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
12 • The rejection of claims 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
13 failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, as it
14 pertains to the narrow grammatical error in the phrase “which allows
15 entering a user to enter,“ is sustained.
16 o This rejection may be overcome by making the syntactic correction
17 that the Appellant indicated would be made, i.e., changing the phrase
18 to “which allows a user to enter.”
19 o The Appellant has the right to make an amendment in conformity
20 therewith under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c).
21 • The rejection of claims 15-19 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
22 paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
23 invention as they pertain to the failure of the phrase beginning with the word
23
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013