Appeal No. 1997-3769
Application 08/418,257
examiner has fallen far short of a complete explanation of the
rejections, appellants’ “argument”, at page 11 of the
principal brief, appears to concede the propriety of the
rejections by failing to make any substantive arguments
thereagainst, preferring, instead, to merely indicate that
appellants have “previously...offered to file an appropriate
terminal disclaimer.” With regard to the non-provisional
double patenting rejection, appellants make no argument
whatsoever.
Since appellants have offered to file a terminal
disclaimer, obviating these rejections, in the event of
allowability of a claim, and we have reversed the rejection of
the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, should the examiner find the instant claims
otherwise allowable, perhaps it would be best for all parties
involved if a proper terminal disclaimer is filed. We leave
these decisions up to appellants and the examiner. In any
event, if no proper terminal disclaimer is filed and the
examiner wishes to pursue the obviousness-type double
patenting rejections, the examiner is instructed to indicate
specific reasons for such rejections, indicating how the
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007