Appeal No. 97-3530
Application No. 08/418,122
The examiner merely contends that the instant application
and the patent and/or copending application are “claiming
common subject matter” but fails to elucidate. Accordingly,
if the examiner maintains these rejections, the examiner is
required to specifically and particularly point out how each
of the rejected/provisionally rejected claims is found to be
obvious over the specifically identified claim limitations of
the patent/application, explaining the differences between the
instant claimed subject matter and the claimed subject matter
in the patent/application and why the instant claimed subject
matter would have been obvious thereover.
We further note, regarding the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection and provisional rejection, that while the
examiner has fallen far short of a complete explanation of the
rejections, appellants’ arguments, at pages 11-12 of the
principal brief, appear to concede the propriety of the
rejections with regard to the Group A claims (15-18, 20, 21,
24, 25, 27, 29-32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43-46, 48, 49, 52, 53,
55) by failing to make any argument thereagainst. We also
note that the only argument that appellants do make, regarding
the deposition rate features of the Group B and C claims, does
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007