Appeal No. 96-2391
Application 08/002,286
Claims 1-20 were subject to final rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Opresko
and Larson. This rejection was maintained in the examiner’s
answer, and the examiner added two additional rejections. Claims
1-20 now stand additionally rejected on the ground of obvious-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Hale. Claims 1-20 also stand additionally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the collective teachings
of the admitted prior art, Larson, Buescher and Falce.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
obviousness and double patenting rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
the appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answers.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007