Appeal 2007-2347
Application 10/122,743
in rejecting claim 5. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 5.
VI. OBJECTION TO THE SPECIFICATION
The Examiner objects to the specification “for not having headers”
(Ans. 8). Appellant asserts that “the current format of the application is
acceptable and proper under applicable law and regulation.” (App. Br. 18).
We find Appellant’s argument is directed to a petitionable matter --
not an appealable matter.4 Therefore, we do not decide this issue.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-13 over the prior art.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 See MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining
to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”);
see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that
should be decided by the Director on petition….”).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013