Appeal No. 99-0633 Page 2
Application No. 08/880,247
The appellant's invention relates to an identification
system comprising a plastic housing for holding a key and an
insert having identification indicia thereon or for holding
coins and an insert having emergency contact information
thereon. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 6 and 12, which appear
in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Corwin et al. (Corwin) 2,566,118 Aug. 28, 1951
Hines 3,094,799 Jun. 25, 1963
Sawyer et al. (Sawyer) 5,038,590 Aug. 13, 1991
Levine et al. (Levine) 5,113,602 May 19, 1992
Steeley (Steeley '600) Des. 352,600 Nov. 22, 1994
Steeley (Steeley '403) 5,577,403 Nov. 26, 1996
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 1 and 3 through 19 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1
through 3 of Steeley '403 since, according to the examiner,
the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to
exclude" already granted in the patent.
(2) Claims 1, 3 through 5, 15 and 16 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007