Appeal No. 95-2599
Application 07/983,931
limitations render the claimed subject matter unobvious
over the prior art. If the rejection is based upon a
combination of references, the argument shall explain
why the references, taken as a whole, do not suggest
the claimed subject matter, and shall include, as may
be appropriate, an explanation of why features
disclosed in one reference may not properly be combined
with features disclosed in another reference. A
general argument that all the limitations are not
described in a single reference does not satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not under any burden to
raise and/or consider such issues.
In view of the above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision that
Appellants’ claims 6, 8 through 10, 22, 24 and 25 are properly
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 23,
26, 33 and 34 present in U.S. Patent No. 5,543,646. In addition,
we affirm the Examiner's decision that Appellants’ claims 6, 8,
22, 24 and 25 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or
103, but we reverse the Examiner’s decision that Appellants’
claims 9 and 10 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or
103. Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007