Ex Parte Mori - Page 2



            Appeal 2007-2499                                                                                  
            Application 09/765,221                                                                            
                   In the Final rejection mailed September 1, 2005, from which Appellant has                  
            appealed, the Examiner rejected claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being                       
            directed to non-statutory subject matter.  More specifically, the Examiner found                  
            that there was “no technological innovation included in the limitations” (Final                   
            Rejection 2).  Appellant responded to this rejection in the Appeal Brief (Appeal                  
            Br. 14-15).  The Examiner, however, failed to address Appellant’s arguments with                  
            regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Answer and failed to state                   
            whether the rejection had been withdrawn.  As such, the status of the rejection of                
            claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is unclear from the record before us.                           
            Accordingly, we remand this application to the Examiner for further clarification                 
            as to the status of the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and to                     
            determine whether or not a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is                       
            proper in view of the recent decision in In re Comiskey, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL                    
            2728361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).                                                                         
                   Furthermore, we note that page 22 of Appellant’s Appeal Brief is missing.                  
            Our review of the text from the page preceding and following the missing page                     
            indicates that the missing text more likely than not includes additional arguments                
            presented by Appellant.  Accordingly, we remand this application to the Examiner                  
            to enter the missing page in the record and to consider any arguments thereon.                    

                                                  ORDER                                                       
                   Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the application is remanded to the                         
            Examiner for appropriate action in regard to the issued discussed above.                          

                                                      2                                                       



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013