Ex Parte Hild et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2007

09532937 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STEFAN GEORG HILD and SANDEEP K. SINGHAL
__________

Appeal 2006-3090
Application 09/532,937
Technology Center 2100
___________

Decided: April 30, 2007
___________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, and
JOSEPH L. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

ORDER TO VACATE AND TO REMAND
In a Decision dated February 16, 2007, the Board affirmed pro forma
the rejection of claim 21 under the written description portion of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 because of a lack of a response to the rejection by the Appellants.
According to an Advisory Action mailed by the Examiner on September 24,
2004, it appears that the written description rejection of claim 21 was
Appeal 2006-3090
Application 09/532,937

overcome. The notice by the Examiner may explain why the Appellants did
not respond to the inexplicable written description rejection of this claim in
both the Final Rejection and the Answer.
Accordingly, we hereby VACATE only the portion of our February
16, 2007 Decision wherein we affirmed the rejection of claim 21 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and REMAND the application to the
Examiner to determine whether the written description rejection applies to
claim 21.
This application by virtue of its special status requires an immediate
action. It is important that the Board be promptly informed of any action
affecting the appeal in this case.

VACATED AND REMANDED

tdl/gw

IBM CORPORATION
3039 CORNWALLIS RD
DEPT. T81 / B503, PO BOX 12195
REASEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709