Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-8,
12-17,
19-32 and 35 of copending Application No. 08/752,529.2
In addition, all of the claims before us on appeal also
stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over certain claims of copending Application No.
08/940,859 taken further in view of Thalenfeld and/or Petrou,
applied collectively and individually.
Claims 13 through 20, 26 through 28, 40 through 49 and 52
through 56 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thalenfeld in view of Petrou. In this
2On page 5 of the answer, the examiner notes that
appellant has filed a terminal disclaimer to obviate this
double patenting rejection, but also indicates that the
terminal disclaimer has not been processed “since there
remains a provisional double patenting rejection over Serial
No. 08/940,859, Appellant’s terminal disclaimer cannot be
processed and entered on the filewrapper, since it is not
possible for the Office to enter a terminal disclaimer in
part. As a result, the provisional double patenting rejection
remains in the case and is repeated here, but is considered to
be moot upon final disposition of this Application and
processing of the terminal disclaimer.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007