Appeal No. 2000-0412
Application No. 09/046,200
appellant's brief (Paper No. 9, filed May 28, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed
Aug. 6, 1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Initially, we remanded this application to the examiner and appellant to clarify the
status of the rejections and responses. Rather than remand this application again for
additional clarification, we will decide the appeal based upon the rejections and
responses as presented by the examiner and appellant.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
From our review of the brief, we note that appellant has indicated that the double
patenting rejection remains an issue at page 1 of the brief and provides no specific
argument in response thereto in the originally filed brief. Nor do we find a specific
argument in the reply or the supplemental brief beyond some analogy to a circus juggler
that may or may not be directed to the disclaimer of subject matter. We do not
understand this analogy by appellant, and do not find it persuasive to the specific
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007