Appeal No. 94-3726
Application 07/978,531
presumed on the part of those practicing in the art).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the
subject matter of claims 1 through 11 would have been obvious
based on the disclosure and teachings of O'Connor or Anderson.
(4) The Rejection of Obviousness-type Double Patenting
Claims 1 through 11 are rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1, 7 through 12 and 14 of O'Connor or claims 1 through
5 of Anderson. It is noted that the present assignee is the
assignee of the O'Connor and Anderson patents while Rahim Hani
is a common
inventor of this application and the O'Connor and Anderson
patents.
In obviousness-type double patenting rejections, one must
determine whether the claims of the later filed application
would have been obvious in view of the claims of the earlier
patent. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010,
2015 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Any analysis employed parallels the
guidelines for analysis of a § 103 obviousness determination.
See In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007