Appeal No. 1997-4067
Application 08/285,324
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-
13 of Application 08/285,326, now U.S. Patent 5,608,821
('821 patent), and claims 1-17 of copending Application
08/285,328 ('328 application).
Claims 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Williams and Kanno.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 16) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 22) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 20)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Double patenting
The test for obviousness-type double patenting is
whether the claimed subject matter of the application is
obvious over what is covered by the patent claims (or the
application claims in the case of a provisional obviousness-
type double patenting rejection). "[T]he disclosure of a
patent cited in support of a double patenting rejection
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007