Appeal No. 1996-3708
Application 07/474,742
cannot be readily ascertained and b) that Examiner should be
estopped from denying the priority date of the parent
application as the Examiner made a determination that the
differences between the parent and the present application are
obvious. Appellants Note that an obvious type double
patenting rejection has been applied based upon the parent,
U.S. Patent 5,068,823, in which the Examiner determined that
the difference between the parent case and the subject case
were obvious. Appellants overcame the double patenting
rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer. Appellants assert
on page 32 of the appeal brief that if the disclosure of the
parent application itself is sufficient to support the claims
then the CIP application should be entitled to the parent’s
filing date.
On page 25 of the answer, the Examiner provided reference
to other documents which identify the publication date of the
Engels article as January 4, 1989 and asserts that the date
identified on the face of the document is erroneous. With
regard to Appellants second point, the Examiner states on page
26 of the answer that the present application is a
continuation-in-part application for the purpose of
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007