Appeal 2007-1747
Application 10/061,492
Advisory Action mailed November 3, 2004. The Primary Examiner refused
to allow claims 43 and 46 through 48, which are all of the claims remaining
in the application. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002); 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a)
(2005).
We remanded this application in the decision entered in Appeal
2006-2433 on August 30, 2006, for the purpose of directing the Examiner to
specifically identify two grounds of rejection of claim 48 advanced in the
Examiner’s Answer mailed November 3, 2005, as new grounds of rejection
in accordance with Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1207.03 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005). We specifically stated:
This remand is made for the purpose of directing the Examiner
to further consider the grounds of rejection. Accordingly, if the
Examiner submits a Supplemental Answer to the Board in
response to this remand, “the appellant must within two months
from the date of the supplemental examiner’s answer exercise
one of” the two options set forth in 37 CFR §41.50(a)(2)
(2005), “in order to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as
to the claims subject to the rejection for which the Board has
remanded the proceeding,” as provided in this rule.
Decision 4-5.
Appellants did not exercise either option within two months of the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed October 25, 2006, as provided in
37 C.F.R. §41.50(a)(2). Appellants also did not file a request for an
extension of time within the time period for response as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(b) (2006). See 37 C.F.R. §41.50(f) (2005).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with respect to claim 48, leaving
claims 43, 46, and 47 before us for consideration. See MPEP § 1215.03 (8th
ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013