Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pogue and Clarkson.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Clark. Claims 17, 18 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Barrett. Claims 17
through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barrett and Clark.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the 2
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner that Claim 10 is properly rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,140,317.
and also is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Clark and Todd. We also agree with the
Examiner that Claims 17, 18 and 20 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Barrett and claims 17
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on March 10, 1994. We
will reference this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on June 13, 1994. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated
in the Examiner’s letter dated June 20, 1994 that the reply brief
has been entered and considered but no further response by the
Examiner is deemed necessary.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007