Appeal No. 1997-3769
Application 08/418,257
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now turn to the rejection of the claims based on
obviousness-type double patenting over claim 11 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,108,951 and the provisional rejection of the claims
based on obviousness-type double patenting over claims 15 of
copending application Serial No. 08/418,122.
We remand the case to the examiner for clarification of
the rejections.
The examiner merely contends that the instant application
and the patent and/or copending application are “claiming
common subject matter” but fails to elucidate. Accordingly,
if the examiner maintains these rejections, the examiner is
required to specifically and particularly point out how each
of the rejected/provisionally rejected claims is found to be
obvious over the specifically identified claim limitations of
the patent/application, explaining the differences between the
instant claimed subject matter and the claimed subject matter
in the patent/application and why the instant claimed subject
matter would have been obvious thereover.
We further note, regarding the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection and provisional rejection, that while the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007