Appeal No. 97-3085
Application 08/236,835
by the control means E, and the spring A or A disposed in the 2 3
liquid pressure dampener B and functioning as a piston”
2
(brief, page 31 ). 4
The claims in each of the applications on appeal stand
finally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting in view of the claims in each of the other
three related applications. With specific regard to the
instant appeal, the examiner states the rejection as follows:
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-21 are rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of non-
statutory type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending
application Serial No. 08/236,809, over claims 1-8
of copending application Serial No. 08/236,069, and
over claims 1-30 [sic, claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-20, 22-
27 and 29-34] of copending application Serial No.
08/236,838. The now claimed subject matter is[5]
4The appellant has used the letters A, B, C, D and E in
the brief to simplify reference to the various features of the
isolator.
5This rejection is actually a “provisional” rejection to
the extent that it is based on the claims in copending
Applications 08/236,809 and 08/236,838. Such “provisional”
rejections are authorized by MPEP § 804 and have been
sanctioned by this Board (see, for example, Ex parte Karol, 8
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007