Appeal No. 96-3189
Application 08/396,079
the original application. Under the "grounds of rejection",
in the Examiner's answer, pages 3 to 4, the Examiner repeats
the final rejection of these claims under the doctrine of
laches, and observes that" . . . these new claims were not
directed to an invention different from the original claims,
nor are they substantially different than the original
claims." [Answer, page 4].
Appellants show in the reply brief, pages 3 to 4, and
further in the appendix, pages 1 to 4, to the reply brief, how
these new claims are different from the original claims.
The Examiner merely acknowledged the entry of the reply
brief but did not offer any rebuttal to Appellants' arguments
as
to these claims [Paper no. 34, mailed on July 9, 1996]. In
the absence of any rebuttal from the Examiner, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 24 through 59 on the basis of
the doctrine of laches.
In conclusion, the rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7
through 23 under the doctrine of laches is sustained; however,
the rejection of claims 24 through 59, on the same ground, is
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007