Appeal No. 96-2562
Application 08/214,858
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art Marks reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the exam-
iner. Upon evaluation of all of the evidence before us, we
have reached the conclusions which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under "the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting," we note appellants' comment on page 6 of
the brief that they have "offered to file a terminal dis-
claimer under 37 C.F.R. 1.321." However, no such termi-
nal disclaimer has been filed and appellants have not other-
wise presented any argument
against the examiner's rejection. As a result, we are com-
pelled to summarily affirm the examiner's rejection based on
double patenting.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007