Appeal No. 99-1439 Page 3
Application No. 29/033,921
In the final office action mailed April 30, 1996, the
examiner properly entered the foregoing amendment, but
stated that "[the] amendment introduces new matter (35
U.S.C.[§] 132, 37 C.F.R. § 1.118)." The examiner
additionally required appellant to cancel the new matter.
As stated by appellant on page 2 of the brief and
confirmed by the examiner on page 2 of the answer, the
second, newly added embodiment was originally disclosed in
appellant's Application No. 29/033,922 which was filed on
even date with the instant application. Appellant states:
After receiving Office Actions in each
application with provisional obviousness-type
double patenting rejections, applicant
determined that this could be rendered moot by
consolidating the two embodiments into one
application thereby assuring the simultaneous
patenting of the two embodiments. No impediment
was known or found in the MPEP, 35 U.S.C. or 37
C.F.R. that would indicate that such
consolidation of the two applications into a
single application was prohibited.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in
this appeal together with the examiner's remarks and
appellant's arguments, including those outlined supra. As
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007