Appeal 2007-0989
Application 10/359,809
We are unfamiliar with the content of the "Merriam-Webster online
dictionary" back on March 21, 2006. Besides likely being unfamiliar with
the content of the Wikipedia website on whatever date the Appellants visited
it, we are also uncertain which parts the Appellants consider "relevant."
Accordingly, we decline to speculate about the evidence that the Appellants
should provide.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we remand the application to the
Examiner to clarify his rejection in a Substitute Examiner's Answer, to
ensure that the Appellants map each of the limitations of claim 1 to the
specific reference characters of Figure 4, to ensure that the Appellants
provide copies of the evidence on which they rely, and for any other action
not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.3 The Substitute Answer
should be self-contained with respect to all rejections and arguments; no
prior answer or Office action should be referenced or incorporated therein.
Similarly, any subsequent brief submitted by the Appellants should be self-
contained with respect to all arguments. No prior brief should be referenced
or incorporated therein.
Because it is being remanded for further action, the application is a
"special" application. M.P.E.P. § 708.01(D). Accordingly, it requires
immediate action. Furthermore, the Board should be informed promptly of
3 For example, U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/101,900, which the
Specification "incorporate[s] by reference," (Specification 4), has issued as a
U.S. Patent. The Appellants may wish to update the Specification.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013