Appeal No. 95-2599
Application 07/983,931
rejection wherein claims 6, 8 through 10, 22, 24 and 25 stand
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the
claims 23, 26, 33 and 34 present in copending application, serial
no. 07/787,912 . 2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
3 4
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
2Now U.S. Patent No. 5,543,646 issued August 6, 1996. In
view of the issuance of a patent, the rejection is no longer
characterized as a provisional rejection.
3Appellants filed an appeal brief on November 2, 1994. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on February 13, 1995. We will refer
to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner
stated in the supplemental Examiner’s answer mailed April 26,
1995 that the reply brief has been entered and considered.
Appellants filed a supplemental reply appeal brief on June 26,
1995. We will refer to this supplemental reply appeal brief as
the supplemental reply brief. The Examiner stated in an
Examiner’s letter, mailed July 3, 1995, that the supplemental
reply brief has been entered and considered.
4The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, mailed December 13, 1994. We will refer to the
Examiner's answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded
to the reply brief with supplemental Examiner's answer, mailed
April 26, 1995. We will refer to the Supplemental Examiner's
answer as simply the supplemental answer. The Examiner responded
to the supplemental reply brief with a letter, mailed July 3,
1995 stating that the supplemental reply brief had been entered
and clarified that claims 6, 8 through 10, 22, 24 and 25 are
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007