Appeal No. 1998-2002
Application 08/690,016
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring-in-part,
Dissenting-in-part
I concur with the majority’s reversal of the examiner’s
section 112 and section 103 rejections, but dissent with
respect to the majority’s reversal of the examiner’s
obviousness-type double patenting rejection. The reversal of
this last mentioned rejection is inappropriate for a number of
reasons.
The majority’s reasons for reversing the double patenting
rejection amount to little more than an unacknowledged
reiteration of arguments advanced by the appellants in their
Reply Brief. These are the first and only arguments presented
by the appellants in opposition to the double patenting
rejection in the record of this application file. Although
the examiner has consistently made this rejection since the
first office action, no arguments thereagainst were made by
the appellants in the amendment filed April 14, 1997
responding to the first office action or in the amendment
filed August 8, 1997 responding the final office action or in
the Brief filed February 12, 1998 in pursuit of this appeal.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007