Appeal 2007-0588
Application 10/202,349
1 (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
2 claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
3 or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
4 event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner …
5
6 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
7 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record …
8
9 OTHER ISSUES
10 The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body,
11 rather than a place of initial examination. We have made a rejection above
12 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). However, we have not reviewed claims 2-6 and
13 20-21 to the extent necessary to determine whether these claims are
14 patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Ho Yuen Lok and/or Van Ryzin
15 references and/or standard file directory techniques in the data processing
16 arts. We leave it to the instant Examiner to determine the appropriateness of
17 any further rejections based on these or other references.
18
19 CONCLUSION OF LAW
20 (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
21 claims 1-6 and 19-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
22 Ho Yuen Lok.
23 (2) Claims 1 and 19 fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
24 (3) Claims 1 and 19 are not patentable.
25 (4) On this record, claims 2-6 and 20-21 have not been shown to be
26 unpatentable.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013