Appeal No. 2001-1240 Page 8
Application No. 08/374,520
claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is
obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim.).
On return of this case, the examiner should consider whether the instant
claims are so closely related to those of the ‘726 and ‘489 patents that they are
not patentably distinct therefrom. If the pending claims are not patentably distinct
from those of the issued patents, a rejection for obviousness-type double
patenting should be made.
Summary
We reverse the rejections because the examiner has not shown that the
rejected claims are identical to the claims in a previously issued patent or that
they lack an adequate written description in the specification.
REVERSED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007