Appeal No. 96-0405
Application No. 08/178,668
examiner to allow claims 26 and 27, as amended (Paper No. 19)
subsequent to the final rejection. These claims constitute
all of the claims remaining in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a portable display
device. An understanding of the invention can be derived from
a reading of exemplary claim 24, a copy of which appears in
the “CLAIM APPENDIX” appended to the main brief (Paper No.
17).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Anderson 2,142,547 Jan. 3, 1939
Kent, Jr. 3,973,341 Aug. 10,
1976
The following rejection is before us for review.2
2A final rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, set forth on page 3 of the main
answer (Paper No. 18), was overcome by an amendment after
final, as acknowledged by the examiner on page 1 of the
supplemental answer (Paper No. 22). Additionally, the main
answer does not carry forward and is silent on the final
rejection of claims 23 through 30 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. This latter
rejection and the earlier filing of a terminal disclaimer
(Paper No. 12) are discussed by appellant on page 3 of the
main brief (Paper No. 17). Considering the absence of the
double patenting rejection from the main answer and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007