Ex Parte Filatov

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 3, 2006

10155453 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 3, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 Alexander Filatov
____________
Appeal No. 2006-1160
Application No. 10/155,453
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRY, BLANKENSHIP, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-14, 16-18, and 21-23. The appellant
appeals from the rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). To
assist us in deciding the appeal, we order the appellant to furnish copies of evidence on
which he relies.
At the time of the appellant's brief, an appeal brief was required to include
"[a]n appendix containing copies of any evidence submitted pursuant to §§ 1.130,
1.131, or 1.132 of this title or of any other evidence entered by the examiner and relied
upon by appellant in the appeal, along with a statement setting forth where in the record
Appeal No. 2006-1160
Application No. 10/155,453
We cite to the version of the C.F.R. in effect at the time of the appellant's brief. 1
that evidence was entered in the record by the examiner. Reference to unentered
evidence is not permitted in the brief." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ix)(Sep. 20, 2004). 1
Here, although the appellant's brief references definitions from a "Merriam-
Webster Online dictionary" and an "American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language," (Appeal Br. at 16), the Evidence Appendix section of the brief omits copies
of the definitions. The latter section merely mentions the definitions.
We decline to substitute speculation about the precise definitions for the greater
certainty that should come from the appellant furnishing copies of the definitions on
which he relies. Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(d), the appellant is given a non-extendable
time period of thirty days within which to respond to this order. Failure to comply with
the order within that time may result in the sua sponte dismissal of their appeal. 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(d). No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal No. 2006-1160
Application No. 10/155,453
ORDERED
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-1160
Application No. 10/155,453
MERCHANT & GOULD PC
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-0903