Appeal No. 96-3624
Application No. 08/293,104
OPINION
We will summarily sustain the provisional rejection of
claims 36 through 39 and 44 under obviousness-type double
patenting since appellant has failed to present any arguments
as to the merits of this provisional rejection, preferring to
assert only that “whether obviousness-type double patenting is
an issue shall be addressed when claims become allowed”
[principal brief-page 2]. In view of the examiner’s assertion
of the provisional rejection and the lack of a properly filed
terminal disclaimer by appellant in order to overcome such
provisional rejection, it is not a matter of whether
obviousness-type double patenting is an issue; rather,
obviousness-type double patenting is an issue and should have
been addressed.
With regard to the rejection of claims 36 through 39 and
44 under 35 U.S.C. 103, we will not sustain this rejection as
we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter.
In particular, the examiner applies Koike as disclosing a
flexible, continuous template display membrane to display
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007