Appeal No. 1995-2781
Application No. 07/804,868
Appellants urge specific elements of appealed claims 3,
5, 6, 9-16, 33, 35, 37, 38 and 41-48 are not found in the
cited claims 1, 4-16, 18-28 and 31-40 of Texter. (Reply
Brief, pages 19-21). The Examiner, in a supplemental
Examiner’s Answer, appears to have provided reasons why the
subject matter of appealed claims 3, 5, 6, 9-16, 33, 35, 37,
38 and 41-48 are not patentably distinct from the subject
matter of Texter claims 1, 4-16, 18-28 and 31-40. We presume
the Appellants have acquiesced to the reasons set forth by the
Examiner because the Appellants have not responded to the
statements by filing a Supplemental Reply Brief.
The rejection of claims 1-16 and 33-49 as unpatentable
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type
double patenting over claims 1, 4-16, 18-28 and 31-40 of U.S.
Patent 5,360,695 in view of Chari is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action In
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007