Appeal 2007-0381
Application 09/934,878
considered by the Examiner in the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer,
Appellants would have been required to either request reopening of
prosecution before the Examiner or file a Reply Brief to continue on Appeal.
In the instant case where the evidence currently remains non-entered,
the Supplemental Answer appears to be a mislabeled Advisory Action
informing Appellants of the entry status of the Exhibit without otherwise
changing the preceding Answer (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer 6).
Appellants’ Reply thereto appears to be a request for reconsideration of the
non-entry determination.
We return this application to the jurisdiction of the involved
Technology Center and the Examiner in order for the appropriate Office
Official(s) to consider and prepare an appropriate response to the Reply
filed February17, 2006, and to otherwise clarify the record as may be
necessary in light of the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, the Reply
thereto, and the above.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013