Appeal 2007-2205
Application 10/396,013
In particular, we remand this application to the Examiner to clarify the
record as to the status of the Application, the pending claims, and the
rejections being maintained by the Examiner.
Procedural History
In the Final Rejection mailed February 03, 2006, the Examiner
presented:
(1) a rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 12 under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as lacking in written descriptive support;
(2) a rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over EP 1072662 A1 in view of WO 01/12740;
(3) a rejection of claim 1-7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,436,834) in view of
WO 01/12740;
(4) a provisional rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 12 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over the claims of then copending Application No. 10/670,587.
In an Amendment filed after the Final Rejection on April 06, 2006,
Appellant continued to argue, inter alia, against the propriety of the
Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection and
indicated that the filing of a terminal disclaimer was moot in light of such
arguments.
In an Advisory Action mailed April 14, 2006, the Examiner found
Appellant’s arguments against the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection and the prior art rejections set forth in the Final Office Action
unpersuasive. However, the Examiner found that the amendment, which
was entered, overcame the § 112, first paragraph rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013