Appeal No. 96-0365 Application 07/983,145 (filed Apr. 18, 1989) Claims 27 through 29 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 20 of McGirr.3 Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zakman or Yokoyama. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zakman or Yokoyama in view of Dodington.4 Reference is made to the final rejection, briefs, and the answer for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner. OPINION We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse all of the rejections. 3The subject application and McGirr both originated from Application 07/339,573 filed on April 18, 1989. 4Although Dodington may not be listed under the prior art of record (Answer, page 3), the rejection of record (Final rejection, pages 4 and 5; Answer, pages 5 and 6; Brief, pages 12 and 13) clearly states that Dodington is used in the rejection of claim 29. Thus, the omission of Dodington from the list of prior art of record is treated as harmless error. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007