Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
179 USPQ 46, 51 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152
USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). See also Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) (8th Ed., August 2001) § 1002.02(c), item 3(g) and
§ 1201. Thus, the relief sought by the Appellants would have been properly
presented by a petition to the Commissioner under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 instead
of by appeal to this Board. Accordingly, we will not further consider this
issue.
CONCLUSION
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) and the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
However, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 or dependent claim 13.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 12 and
18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) and the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013