Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
OPINION
We turn, first to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1-34 and we note that while appellants
have presented no arguments regarding the merits of this
rejection, appellants have filed a terminal disclaimer (Paper
No. 13-October 28, 1998).
We have no input from the examiner as to the
acceptability of this terminal disclaimer. In fact, the
examiner has repeated the rejection in the answer with
apparent disregard for, or ignorance of, the filing of this
terminal disclaimer.
Accordingly, we remand this application back to the
examiner for a finding of whether the terminal disclaimer
overcomes the rejection of claims 1-34 based on obviousness-
type double patenting.
Claims 1-34 stand also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Greif, Bittel and
Borland.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-34 under
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007