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)
Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011)