Appeal No. 1997-1382
Application No. 08/478,172
USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422
F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163
USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) may be
used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on an obviousness type double
patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be com-monly
owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.78(d).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a
terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37
CFR 3.73(b)
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending
Application No. 08/076,504 (which is the parent application of the present application).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each
other because the additional claim limitation “wherein said image signature is created
from at least some portion of said image” in the present claims would have
been an obvious variation of the generic image signature claimed in the parent
application.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007