Appeal No. 2007-0429
Application 09/848,430
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 13, l5, and 17-25 under § 103(a) for
obviousness over Pirolli in view of Call is reversed, as is the rejection of claims 2,
6, 10, l4, and 16 under § 103(a) for obviousness over Pirolli in view of Call and
further in view of Cohen.
Furthermore, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2006),
we have entered a new ground of rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, 18, and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Call.
APELLANTS’ OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO
THE NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Appellants’ options for responding to the new ground of rejection are as
follows:
(b) . . . A new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.
When the Board makes a new ground of rejection, the
appellant, within two months from the date of the decision,
must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal
as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
evidence not previously of record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection stated
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013