Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Trammell in view of
Poppendiek.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 17, mailed April 11, 1996) and the supplemental
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 21, mailed September 3, 1996).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 16, filed January 11, 1996) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 19, filed June 17, 1996).
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Considering first the rejection of the appealed claims
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting, the reply brief states on page 2 that
"Applicant hereby offers to submit a suitable Terminal
Disclaimer in order to overcome the new ground of rejection.
Such a Terminal Disclaimer will be filed at such time as the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection stands as the only
obstacle to allowance."
In light of the circumstance that appellant has failed to
point out any error in the examiner’s obviousness-type double
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007