Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
appeal, we have given careful consideration to the entire
record of appellant's application, including the specification
and claims, the teachings of the applied prior art references,
the evidence of non-obviousness supplied by appellant, and the
respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of that review we have reached the
conclusions which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejections based on
provisional obviousness-type double patenting, we note that
appellant (brief, pages 2-4) has erroneously characterized
these rejections as being “moot at this time,” because the
claims of Application No. 08/752,529 and Application No.
08/940,859 relied upon in the rejections were not yet allowed.
Accordingly, appellant has merely urged that these rejections
“will be dealt with in whichever of the applications is
appropriate in due course.” In response, the examiner has
remained silent in the answer and has not challenged appellant
in any way on this characterization of the double patenting
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007