Appeal No. 2001-1462 Page 5
Application No. 09/306,516
and second half inserts to said first and second minor flaps,”
and claim 9, which depends from claim 7, as being unpatentable
over De Reamer in view of Watanabe and Herrick.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
In an attempt to overcome the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection, appellant filed a terminal disclaimer on
February 26, 2001 (Paper No. 16).2 There is no indication in the
record that the examiner has notified appellant whether this
terminal disclaimer is sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Therefore, we remand this application to the examiner to inform
appellant of the status of the terminal disclaimer and, hence, of
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
2 In an advisory action mailed on October 30, 2000 (Paper No. 11), the
examiner explained to appellant that the terminal disclaimer filed September
28, 2000 (Paper No. 10) with the brief is improper because it is directed to
specific claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007