Appeal No. 96-0365
Application 07/983,145
(filed Apr. 18,
1989)
Claims 27 through 29 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1 through 20 of McGirr.3
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Zakman or Yokoyama.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zakman or Yokoyama in view of Dodington.4
Reference is made to the final rejection, briefs, and the
answer for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
3The subject application and McGirr both originated from
Application 07/339,573 filed on April 18, 1989.
4Although Dodington may not be listed under the prior art
of record (Answer, page 3), the rejection of record (Final
rejection, pages 4 and 5; Answer, pages 5 and 6; Brief, pages
12 and 13) clearly states that Dodington is used in the
rejection of claim 29. Thus, the omission of Dodington from
the list of prior art of record is treated as harmless error.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007