Appeal No. 2001-0059 Page 5
Application No. 08/530,370
Again, we disagree with the examiner=s conclusion for the reasons discussed
above in our analysis of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. ' 103. In addition, we remind
the examiner that a finding of double patenting should be based on the claims of an
application or patent; the teachings of the specification of the application or patent may
only be used for certain, limited purposes - and not as prior art. See, e.g., In re Vogel,
422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 9 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting is reversed.
REVERSED
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Toni R. Scheiner ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) )INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Nixon & Vanderhye
1100 North Glebe Road 8th Floor
Arlington, VA 22201-4714
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007