Appeal No. 2003-1169
Application 09/879,888
681-683 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In this context, the examiner should
expound on the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
according to the analysis set forth in In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380,
382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Jones, 958
F.2d 347, 350, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
III.
Claim 17 recites “an effective amount”. Upon return of the
application, the examiner is to consider what amount is meant by
this phrase, and for what purpose, and whether this phrase is
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
IV.
In conclusion, we affirm the anticipation rejection.
However, with regard to the provisional rejection under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting,
and with regard to the matter raised in Section III, we remand
the application to the examiner to attend to these matters.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007