The Opposer considered this amendment by Applicant people amount to non equovitabled behavior since Applicant apperently trying to have their cake and eat it in that one hand to receive decoy into dummy target as it is synonymous, noting the amendment is by way of clarification, while other hand 'the Applicant have explained that the amend is significant in that it enables overcome the office action.
The Opposer considered that this amendment by the Applicant amounts to non-equitable behavior since the Applicant was apparently trying to have his cake and eat it in that on the one hand he was replacing decoy with dummy target as they are the synonymous, noting that the amendment is by way of clarification, whilst on the other hand, the Applicant has explained that the amendment is significant in that it enables overcoming the office action.