Appeal No. 95-1484
Application 08/070,650
Thus, the claims here on appeal and the claims in U.S.
5,144,021 are supported by the same disclosure.
Claim 1 of U.S. 5,144,021 reads:
1. A reticulated cellulose product characterized
as having a reticulated structure and having strands of
cellulose that interconnect forming a grid-like pattern
extending in three dimensions to give a fenestrated
appearance when viewed with a scanning electron
microscope.
We note that the product of Claim 1 of U.S. 5,144,021 is
defined in the same manner as the product made by the
processes of Claims 57 and 64 of this appeal, and, thus,
appears to be indistin-guishable from the reticulated
cellulose product of Claim 68 of this appeal which is
“produced by the by method of claim 64" (Claim 68) .4
Claims 1 and 3-6 of Johnson et al. (Johnson), U.S.
4,863,565, issued September 5, 1989, over which Claims 67 and
68 here stand rejected for obviousness-type double patenting,
read:
1. A wet laid cellulosic sheet comprising a
The examiner should consider whether the patenting of4
product Claims 67 and 68 of this appeal would be obviousness-type
double patenting of Claim 1 of U.S. 5,144,021. Moreover, the
examiner and appellants should consider the propriety of a
rejection of product-by-process Claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
over Claim 1 of U.S. 5,144,021.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007