Appeal No. 94-3726
Application 07/978,531
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the appealed
claims would have been obvious in view of the clims of the
earlier filed O'connor or Anderson patents.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Tirpak, Rei
'080, Rei '657, and Yeager is reversed.
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the
following new grounds of rejection have been made. Claim 10
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. Claim
11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as anticipated by
O'Connor or Anderson. Claims 1 through 11 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over O'Connor or Anderson.
Claims 1 through 11 are rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting in view of
claims 1, 7 through 12 and 14 of O'Connor or claims 1 through
5 of Anderson.
This decision contains a new grounds of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997,
by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53, 131, 53, 197 (Oct. 10,
1997), 1203 off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63,122 (Oct 21,
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007