Appeal No. 1998-2129 Page 11
Application No. 08/561,816
claims 1, 10 and 21 of Lassiter (R.E. 35,603) as modified
based on the teachings of Meeker as applied by the examiner in
combination therewith. Accordingly, we shall sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1, 10 and 21 of Lassiter (R.E. 35,603) in combination
with Meeker.
Other Issues
Prior to final disposition of this application and/or in
the event of any other further prosecution of the subject
matter of this application, the examiner should determine
whether an obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claim 18 over any of the claims of Lassiter (R.E. 35,603)
would also be appropriate with or without additional prior
art. In this regard, we also note that claims 4 and 13 of
Lassiter (R.E. 35,603), which claims describe plastic tab
material should be particularly considered by the examiner in
considering an obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
appellant’s claims in the event of further prosecution.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 18 under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007