Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 5
Application No. 08/442,816
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9 to 24, 31 to 38 and 44 to 46 stand
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over the claims of Winner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections , we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper3
No. 16, mailed December 3, 1996) and the supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 18, mailed April 16, 1997) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed
September 16, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
January 28, 1997) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
3The other rejections set forth in the final rejection
and the answer have been withdrawn by the examiner in the
Advisory Action of June 28, 1996 (Paper No. 10) and the
supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 18).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007