MPEP § 1211 — Remand by Director or Board (Annotated Rules)
§1211 Remand by Director or Board
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 1211, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Remand by Director or Board
This section addresses Remand by Director or Board. Primary authority: 37 CFR 41.35(c), 37 CFR 41.40(a), and 37 CFR 41.50(e). Contains: 2 guidance statements, 2 permissions, and 3 other statements.
Key Rules
Board Decision Types
Both the Director and the Board have the authority to remand a case to the examiner when necessary. See 37 CFR 41.35(c) and (e), and 37 CFR 41.40(a). As specified by 37 CFR 41.50(e), a remand by the Board is not appealable (i.e. not final for purposes of judicial review). In any remand, jurisdiction over the appeal is transferred from the Board back to the examiner. Following the remand, the examiner should take action consistent with the remand order. In the absence of other guidance in the remand order, the examiner should take an action described in MPEP § 1207.
Both the Director and the Board have the authority to remand a case to the examiner when necessary. See 37 CFR 41.35(c) and (e), and 37 CFR 41.40(a). As specified by 37 CFR 41.50(e), a remand by the Board is not appealable (i.e. not final for purposes of judicial review). In any remand, jurisdiction over the appeal is transferred from the Board back to the examiner. Following the remand, the examiner should take action consistent with the remand order. In the absence of other guidance in the remand order, the examiner should take an action described in MPEP § 1207.
Both the Director and the Board have the authority to remand a case to the examiner when necessary. See 37 CFR 41.35(c) and (e), and 37 CFR 41.40(a). As specified by 37 CFR 41.50(e), a remand by the Board is not appealable (i.e. not final for purposes of judicial review). In any remand, jurisdiction over the appeal is transferred from the Board back to the examiner. Following the remand, the examiner should take action consistent with the remand order. In the absence of other guidance in the remand order, the examiner should take an action described in MPEP § 1207.
Both the Director and the Board have the authority to remand a case to the examiner when necessary. See 37 CFR 41.35(c) and (e), and 37 CFR 41.40(a). As specified by 37 CFR 41.50(e), a remand by the Board is not appealable (i.e. not final for purposes of judicial review). In any remand, jurisdiction over the appeal is transferred from the Board back to the examiner. Following the remand, the examiner should take action consistent with the remand order. In the absence of other guidance in the remand order, the examiner should take an action described in MPEP § 1207.
Both the Director and the Board have the authority to remand a case to the examiner when necessary. See 37 CFR 41.35(c) and (e), and 37 CFR 41.40(a). As specified by 37 CFR 41.50(e), a remand by the Board is not appealable (i.e. not final for purposes of judicial review). In any remand, jurisdiction over the appeal is transferred from the Board back to the examiner. Following the remand, the examiner should take action consistent with the remand order. In the absence of other guidance in the remand order, the examiner should take an action described in MPEP § 1207.
PTAB Jurisdiction
For example, the Director may remand a case for consideration of a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR 41.35(c) where there has been a change in the law that calls for a new ground of rejection to be entered. Such a remand may require the examiner to prepare a substitute examiner’s answer to enter the new ground of rejection.
For example, the Director may remand a case for consideration of a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR 41.35(c) where there has been a change in the law that calls for a new ground of rejection to be entered. Such a remand may require the examiner to prepare a substitute examiner’s answer to enter the new ground of rejection.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Board Decision Types PTAB Jurisdiction | 37 CFR § 41.35(c) |
| Board Decision Types | 37 CFR § 41.40(a) |
| Board Decision Types | 37 CFR § 41.50(e) |
| Board Decision Types | MPEP § 1207 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 1211 — Remand by Director or Board
Source: USPTO1211 Remand by Director or Board [R-08.2017]
Both the Director and the Board have the authority to remand a case to the examiner when necessary. See 37 CFR 41.35(c) and (e), and 37 CFR 41.40(a). As specified by 37 CFR 41.50(e), a remand by the Board is not appealable (i.e. not final for purposes of judicial review). In any remand, jurisdiction over the appeal is transferred from the Board back to the examiner. Following the remand, the examiner should take action consistent with the remand order. In the absence of other guidance in the remand order, the examiner should take an action described in MPEP § 1207.
For example, the Director may remand a case for consideration of a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR 41.35(c) where there has been a change in the law that calls for a new ground of rejection to be entered. Such a remand may require the examiner to prepare a substitute examiner’s answer to enter the new ground of rejection.