Ex Parte Manley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2006

10784707 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2006)

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for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 PAUL F. MANLEY
________________

Appeal 2006-2102
Application 10/784,707
Technology Center 1700
________________

Decided: August 30, 2006
________________

Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.

JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

ORDER REMANDING TO THE EXAMINER
This case is not ripe for meaningful review and is, therefore,
remanded to the Examiner for appropriate action consistent with the views
expressed below.
On page 5 of the Appeal Brief filed September 20, 2005, the
Appellant provides a discussion of an Affidavit. Specifically, Appellant
Appeal 2006-2102
Application 10/784,707

2
states "the examiner [sic, is] respectfully requested to view the attached
Affidavit submitted under 37 C.F.R. [§] 1.132." However, a review of the
Brief reveals that an Affidavit was not attached. Further, the Image File
Wrapper (IFW) does not include an entry for an Affidavit filed on the same
date as the Brief. Moreover, the Examiner has not addressed Appellant’s
reference to an Affidavit in the Answer.
A review of the IFW reveals that an Affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
was filed on June 17, 2005. The present record is not clear as to whether the
Appellant is referring to this Affidavit in the discussion appearing in the
Brief or whether a new Affidavit has been provided with the filing of the
Brief.
We also note that Appellant's Brief submitted September 20, 2005 is
not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37. Appellant's Brief does not
include the Evidence Appendix and Related Proceedings Appendix, which
are required by the cited rule.
In summary, the present application is remanded to the Examiner to
respond to any properly submitted Affidavit or other evidence submitted by
the Appellant. The Examiner should also ensure that the Appellant's Brief
meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37.
Appeal 2006-2102
Application 10/784,707

3
This application, by virtue of its special status, requires immediate
action. See MPEP § 708.01 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005), item (D). It is
important that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences be promptly
informed of any action affecting the appeal in this case.
REMANDED

clm

Law Office of Steven B. Leavitt
9914 Waterview Parkway
Rowlett, TX 75089