Appeal No. 2001-0096
Application 09/301,891
THE ISSUE
The issue presented for review is whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims
13 through 17 as unpatentable over Pannell in view of Alston.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials:
(1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) Appellant’s main Brief (Paper No. 7) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 9);
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 8);
(4) the above -cited prior art references; and
(5) the application’s prosecution history.
On consideration of the entire record, including the above-listed materials, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of obviousness-type double patenting.
DISCUSSION
Procedural Issues
Initially, we note that the Appellant has stated in the Main Brief (page 4, lines 8 -9)
that the claims stand separately. The Examiner has observed in the Examiner’s Answer
(page 2, lines 13-15) that the Appellant’s Main Brief does not include the reasons in
support of that statement as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 (c)(7). In its Reply Brief
(page 4, lines 8-10) the Appellant again emphatically asserts that separate arguments
were included in the Main Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007