Appeal No. 1996-2350
Application 07/843,833
Consequently, for the reasons set forth by appellant
in the briefs and as further explained above, we shall not
sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-6.6
Turning to the examiner's obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of appealed claims 1-6, we observe that
appellant asserts that a terminal disclaimer has been
proffered and that ". . . this rejection is not, in fact, an
issue" (brief, page 17). However, the mere offer to furnish a
terminal disclaimer, as opposed to the actual filing of an
acceptable terminal disclaimer, is not effective to overcome
the stated rejection. Moreover, appellant has not furnished a
substantive argument specifically alleging any errors that
appellant may have considered to be present in the examiner's
obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
6We note that dependent claims 2-6 include the above-
discussed limitations of claim 1 by virtue of their dependency
thereon. Accordingly, like the § 103 rejection of claim 1,
the examiner's § 103 rejection of these claims cannot be
sustained.
Page 9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007