Appeal No. 97-3703 Page 4
Application No. 08/110,349
4. Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 14 and 16 through 18 stand
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and
15 of the Armington patent in view of Scott, Walker and
Osmera.
5. Claim 26 stands rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of the Armington patent in
view of Scott, Walker and Giordano.
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellants appears
in the final rejection (Paper No. 16, mailed December 12,
1995) and answer (Paper No. 26, mailed April 11, 1997), while
the complete statement of the appellants' argument can be
found in the brief (Paper No. 25, filed December 16, 1996) and
reply brief (Paper No. 27, filed June 13, 1997).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007