Appeal No. 97-3530
Application No. 08/418,122
not appear to be accurate. For example, instant claim 19
appears to be directed to the same subject matter as patented
claim 15 regarding deposition rates.
Since appellants have offered to file a terminal
disclaimer, obviating these rejections, in the event of
allowability of a claim, and we have reversed the rejection of
the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, should the examiner find the
instant claims otherwise allowable, perhaps it would be best
for all parties involved if a proper terminal disclaimer is
filed. We leave these decisions up to appellants and the
examiner. In any event, if no proper terminal disclaimer is
filed and the examiner wishes to pursue the obviousness-type
double patenting rejections, the examiner is instructed to
indicate specific reasons for such rejections, indicating how
the claims of the aforementioned patent and patent application
are being applied against each claim of the instant
application.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007