Appeal No. 1997-3056 Application No. 08/377,966 before us, we also cannot sustain these other obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 5-8. In short, we cannot sustain any of the obviousness-type double patenting rejections constructed and advanced on this appeal by the Examiner because they are all tainted with fatal error, as least in the form of impermissible hindsight, in relation to the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious “to modify” the patent claim apparatus “to use” a filtration unit of the type disclosed in the MiniKap brochure. OTHER ISSUES Although the double patenting rejections formulated by the Examiner cannot be sustained, it is our determination that the record before us presents other issues involving obviousness-type double patenting which should be addressed and resolved by the Appellant and the Examiner. These other issues become apparent upon a proper evaluation of the apparatus defined by the appealed claims in comparison with the apparatus defined by the claims of Patent No. 5,173,264 to Zaromb. Specifically, it is our perception that the apparatus structure defined by the patent claims corresponds to the structure (i.e., satisfies the structural requirements) defined by certain of the appealed claims. 77Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007