Appeal No. 1997-0621
Application 08/368,679
identical. It is noted that the master/slaver [sic,
slave] features in the copending application are not
essential features [answer, page 4].
Even though Appellants request, [brief, page 4], that
this rejection be held in abeyance until the claims in the two
applications are in allowable form but-for this issue, we,
nevertheless, believe, after studying the claims in the
copending application, Serial No. 08/368,680, that this
rejection cannot be sustained since no conflicting claims
appear in the two applications. More specifically, as an
example, master/slave sample and hold circuits are configured
in the circuitry of the claims of the copending application.
They are not disclosed in the instant application. The mere
assertion, without more, by the Examiner that the master/slave
features in the copending application are not essential
features does not negate the claimed difference between the
two applications. Thus, we do not
sustain the obvious-type double patenting rejection of claims
1 to 20 in this case.
In summary, we have not sustained the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 to 20 over Lish. We also have not
sustained the obvious-type double patenting rejection of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007