Ex Parte Millikan et al - Page 9

               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