Appeal No. 1996-2961
Application No. 08/342,827
yarns that are not predominant on the paper carrying side of
the fabric. On the other hand, appellants have cited U.S.
Patent No. 4,883,097 for evidence that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been able to do so. To the extent the
examiner's rejection is based upon the description requirement
of § 112, first paragraph, we find that the presently claimed
invention is adequately described at page 3 of the
specification, first paragraph.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 15-19,
21-23 and 25 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting. Appellants have not
presented a substantive argument why the appealed claims would
not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
view of the patented claims of the parent application.
Appellants merely submit that "the assertion that claim 15 is
obvious in view of issued claim 6 is inconsistent with the
rejection of claim 15 under §112, first paragraph" (page 8 of
Brief). We note that "applicants are willing to submit a
terminal disclaimer to render moot the obvious-type double
patenting rejection" (page 8 of Brief). Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007