Appeal No. 94-2894
Application 07/725,222
We note that appellants understood that an obviousness-type double patenting
issue was raised when these claims were presented in immediate parent application
07/638,944 in that a terminal disclaimer was submitted with that application. However,
terminal disclaimers do not carry forward to subsequent continuing applications. As the
record in this application now stands, an appropriate terminal disclaimer is not of record.
But see, the statement under 37 CFR § 1.196(c) set forth below.
2. Claim 7.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
While claim 7 refers to the lower alkanol required by claim 15, the result required in
claim 7 is measured in terms of ethanol activity, not lower alkanol activity. Thus, claim 7 is
indefinite on its face.
Appellants recognized this and attempted to amend claim 7 to obviate this error in
an amendment filed with the Appeal Brief filed March 29, 1993. That amendment was not
entered by the examiner. Thus, as of this date, the examiner has not allowed appellants to
correct this error. Again, see the statement under 37 CFR § 1.196(c) below.
Statements Under 37 CFR § 1.196(c)
Under the provisions of this rule, we make the following two statements. First, if
appellants file an appropriate terminal disclaimer in the time period set forth below, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007