Appeal No. 97-1691
Application No. 08/519,375
application upon which the patent is based. Instead, it is
the appellant's position that:
The claims of United States Patent '982 rely for
patentability on different novel features of the
novel compression packaging machine, i.e. see claim
14 [of] that patent, particularly lines 42-43 where
patentability is based on the length of the
compression chamber beyond the opening in which
material is charged into the compression chamber and
the structure and function of a pivot wall that
forces the work product into the compression
chamber. Claims 14, 15 and others of the '892
patent can be infringed without infringing the
claims of the present application, e.g. a prior art
retaining wall could be used since the retaining
wall means is in the preamble of the improvement
claims.
However, since at least a portion of the present
invention is included in claim 1 of '892 in
combination with other novel and unobvious features
such as the structure and function of the pivot
wall, a terminal disclaimer is included with this
Reply Brief to remove this issue from the appeal. 4
[Reply brief, page 2; footnote added.]
The appellant, however, has not presented any argument as
to why the examiner erred in rejecting the appealed claims on
obviousness-type double patenting with respect to claim 1 of
the patent. Obviously, claim 1 of the patent could not be
4However, the terminal disclaimer was deemed unacceptable
by the examiner and not entered (see the response to the reply
brief mailed February 19, 1997 (Paper No. 15)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007