Appeal No. 96-2692
Application 08/310,892
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of
Childs and Neches. In the Examiner's answer, the Examiner set
forth a new ground of rejection in which claims 1, 7 and 15
stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness- type double patenting over claims 1 and 3 of Cok.
However, in a letter dated May 14, 1996, the Examiner with-
draws the double patenting rejection because of the Appel-
lants' filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer 2
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. How-
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on December 11, 1995.
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on April 29, 1996. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter dated May 14, 1996
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007