Slide 30 of 44
Notes:
Appellant gets the last word; more consistent with court proceedings. The current practice was viewed as unfair by the bar, since the examiner determined entry of papers.
Eliminates an area of contention with the bar: Frequently the issues degenerated to a contest on side issues involving a lot of time wasted on reviewing and deciding petitions requesting review of decisions denying entry of reply briefs.
This will save time, because it eliminates the burden of reviewing reply briefs for compliance with a hazy requirement. By acknowledging and indicating the entry of the reply brief the Board is assured that the examiner has seen the reply brief.
Sand bagging by the applicant may result in a reopening of prosecution, which will negatively impact the patent term, thereby limiting the desirability of sand bagging.
If the examiner wants to respond to the reply brief she can; but prosecution will have to be reopened.
