Appeal No. 2003-1402
Application No. 09/034,969
Section 103 rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over Smith, Theimer,
and Bustos
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith, Theimer, and Bustos. Bustos does not remedy the
deficiencies in the rejection applied against claim 20, from which claim 21 depends.
Moreover, in view of the subject matter of claim 21, the relevance of the allegation that
Bustos would have suggested a “car wash service” (Answer at 16-17) is not apparent.
New Grounds of Rejection -- 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
We enter the following new grounds of rejection against the claims in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
I. Obviousness-type double patenting
Claims 1-33 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting.
At the oral hearing, appellant’s representative confirmed appellant’s intent to file
a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection entered by the examiner over the patents
cited in the Answer.2 The latest paper offered as such a disclaimer, filed April 18, 2002,
appears to be, as appellant contends, in a format suggested by the USPO as set forth
2 See page 3, supra.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007