Appeal 2007-2205
Application 10/396,013
toward placing this application in condition for decision on appeal with
respect to the issues presented.
If, on the other hand, the Examiner has decided to withdraw the
obviousness-type double patenting grounds of rejection of all of the
appealed claims and the earlier filed Amended Brief is considered an
adequate reply to the earlier defective Brief Notification of October 13,
2006, the Examiner should furnish a Supplemental Answer communicating
such with an explanation as to why this grounds of rejection is no longer
considered to be warranted.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Examiner is required to take appropriate action
consistent with current examining practice and procedure to rectify the
above-noted matters. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(2) (2005) does not apply.
We hereby remand this application to the Examiner, via the Office of
a Director of the Technology Center involved, for appropriate action in view
of the above comments.
This application, by virtue of its “special” status, requires immediate
action.
REMANDED
tf/ls
ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS
CMP HOLDINGS, INC.
451 BELLEVUE ROAD
NEWARK, DE 19713
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013