Appeal No. 2003-1912
Serial No. 09/436,440
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner on
appeal is:
Wardle 4,806,613 Feb. 21, 1989
The following rejections are before us for consideration:
I. Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for indefiniteness.
II. Claims 1-11 and 33-41 stand rejected under the
judicially created obviousness-type double patenting doctrine as
being obvious from claims 1-13 of copending application
09/436,360 (hereafter application ‘360).
III. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 34-36, and 39-40 stand rejected for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wardle.
Based on the record before us, we agree with appellants,
essentially for the reasons given in their brief and reply brief,
that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support any of
the rejections before us. Accordingly, we shall reverse each of
the rejections applied by the examiner.
As for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner
asserts that it is unclear if the A block and B block
constituents of the claims are mutually exclusive since, under
certain temperature conditions, the claims allegedly allow for
the A blocks and B blocks to be identical. On the other hand,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007