Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 5
Application No. 08/705,592
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The double patenting rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 9 to 17 and 19
to 25 under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over the claims in U.S. Patent No. 5,595,458 to
Grabhorn.
The appellant has not argued this rejection of claims 6,
7, 9 to 17 and 19 to 25 under the judicially created doctrine
of double patenting. Instead, the appellant has stated that
he has offered to file a Terminal Disclaimer once allowable
subject matter has been indicated in the present case (brief,
p. 5). Since no Terminal Disclaimer has yet been submitted to
overcome this rejection, we summarily sustain the rejection of
claims 6, 7, 9 to 17 and 19 to 25 under the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting.
The indefiniteness rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007