Appeal 2007-0381
Application 09/934,878
substance of the remarks is seemingly directed to seeking reconsideration of
the Examiner’s decision not to enter Appellants’ submission of excerpts
from Principles of Polymerization by George Odium (Exhibit). The Reply
does not present additional arguments addressing the merits of the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection. Rather, it is argued in the Reply that the
Exhibit was submitted with an Amendment on September 25, 2003 and that
the record reflects that the amendment (which allegedly included the
Exhibit) was entered and considered by the Examiner. (See Reply 2 and
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer 6). Thus, the Reply is seemingly
presenting a petitionable question that is not within the jurisdiction of this
panel of the Board to resolve.
In particular, we note that the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
informs Appellants of the non-entry status of the Exhibit without otherwise
seeming to change the Examiner’s position on appeal in the original Answer.
Compare the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer to the original Examiner’s
Answer in their entirety. Appellants’ Reply to the Supplemental Examiner’s
Answer appears to be a Request for Reconsideration respecting the non-
entry determination. In this regard, we observe that the possibility of a
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, as referred to in the Panel Remand dated
January 19, 2005, should have been reasonably understood by Appellants
and the Examiner as being directed to the case where the Examiner may
have determined that the Exhibit, in question, was entered and consideration
thereof was required. In such a case, the Examiner was being advised to
address such evidence and arguments pertaining thereto in a Supplemental
Answer if the Exhibit was entered, found unpersuasive, and the rejections
were being maintained. Of course, if the evidence had been entered and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013