AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Read et al 12987423 - (D) BAER 102/double patenting MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP CAO, CHUN
We disagree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings in the Examiner’s Answer are a new ground of rejection because the Examiner does not change the basic thrust of the rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (holding that additional explanation responding to arguments offered for the first time “did not change the rejection, and [Appellant] had fair opportunity to respond”).
Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) 1207.03
Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02
No comments :
Post a Comment