Appeal No. 95-3512
Application 08/092,540
For these reasons, the combined teachings of Gilles and
McConnell do not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the
subject matter recited in independent claims 26, 34 and 41 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of these claims or of claims 27 through 33 and
35 through 39 which depend therefrom.
As a final matter, it is noted that the claims in parent
Application 07/790,469 were subjected to an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection based on U.S. Patent No. 5,064,421,
and that such rejection was overcome by a terminal disclaimer
(Paper No. 6). Given its terms, the terminal disclaimer would
not appear to be effective with respect to the instant
application (see MPEP 1490). Since the claims on appeal are of a
scope which is similar to that of the claims which were rejected
in the parent application, the examiner my wish to consider
whether the claims on appeal raise an obviousness-type double
patenting issue which can be obviated by the filing of a new
terminal disclaimer.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007