Ex Parte Korenevsky

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2006

10037548 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2006)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte LEV KORENEVSKY
________________

Appeal No. 2006-0940
Application No. 10/037,548
________________

ON BRIEF
________________

Before KIMLIN, PAK, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
This application is remanded to the examiner for the
purpose of allowing the examiner to respond to appellant's
arguments set forth in the Reply Brief which were not presented
in the principal brief. Appellant's Reply Brief presents
arguments against each of the examiner's 35 U.S.C § 102
rejections that did not appear in the main brief. For instance,
with respect to the examiner's § 102 rejection over Thackara,
appellant maintains that elements 17 and 26 of Thackara "are not
Appeal No. 2006-0940
Application No. 10/037,548

-2-
presented as washers" (page 1 of Reply Brief, third paragraph).
Regarding the § 102 rejection over Newman, appellant contends
that "Newman's patent does not even have any mentioning of a
hook, as well as any mentioning of sealing and replacement of
worn parts" (page 1 of Reply Brief, fourth paragraph).
Appellant also presents arguments against the § 102 rejection
over Dezen that were not in the principal brief. Accordingly
the examiner should respond to the new arguments presented in
the Reply Brief.
Also, although the examiner states that "[t]he statement of
the status of claims contained in the brief is correct" (page 2
of Answer), the examiner has not stated a rejection of claim 9,
nor has the examiner stated that claim 9 is allowable. Hence,
the examiner should clarify on the record whether the final
rejection of claim 9 is maintained or whether claim 9 is
allowed.
This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(a)(1) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7,
2004)) is made for further consideration of a rejection.
Accordingly, 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) applies if a Supplemental
Appeal No. 2006-0940
Application No. 10/037,548

-3-
Examiner's Answer is written in response to this remand by the
Board.
REMANDED

EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )

ECK:clm

Appeal No. 2006-0940
Application No. 10/037,548

-4-
Lev Korenevsky
250 174st. #1107
Miami Beach, FL 33160