Appeal 2007-1268
Application 10/177,845
allowance because "[t]he Applicant failed to show a good and
sufficient reason why the [Section 132] affidavit was not presented
earlier in prosecution (i.e. prior to the final rejection)." (Advisory
Action 2.)
8. The Advisory Action also stated that:
in regard to the telephone conversation dated June
23rd, 2006, the Examiner would like to clarify that
it was only stated that the prior art might not
qualify under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Confirmation of
the validity of the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection
would be reviewed through an official office
action upon an appropriate submission of an
affidavit under 37 C.F.R. 1.132. Examiner would
also like to note that Applicant is responsible for
complying with section 706 of the MPEP.
(Advisory Action 2.)
9. On July 26, 2006, Appellants filed the instant appeal.
10. In the Appeal Brief filed August 10, 2006 ("Brief"), Appellants
submitted for the first time a single page of an invention disclosure in
the Evidence Appendix of the Brief. (Brief 13.)
11. In the Examiner's answer mailed November 1, 2006 ("Answer"), the
Examiner clarified the statement in the Advisory Action regarding the
timeliness of the Section 132 Declaration and further explained why
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013