Appeal No. 2004-1356
Application No. 09/785,100
missing, if any, in the claims of Apps ‘654 or ‘012, would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner
provided no obviousness analysis for the obviousness-type double
patenting rejections set forth in the prior Office Action and the
Answer. The examiner also did not respond to the appellants’
argument regarding the “two-way” obviousness test for the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection based on Apps ‘012 in
the prior Office Action and the Answer.
In view of the above deficiencies in the Answer, we remand
this application to the examiner to authorize the submission of a
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer addressing the above deficiencies
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1)(2003).
This application, by virtue of its “special” status,
requires immediate action. See MPEP § 708.01(d)(8th Ed., Rev. 1,
Feb. 2003). It is important that the Board of Patent Appeals and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007