Ex parte GUTTAG et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 96-1741                                                          
          Application 08/160,111                                                      

          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for               
          the respective details thereof.                                             
          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 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.                               
          It is our view, after consideration of the record                           
          before us, that the provisional obviousness-type double                     
          patenting rejection should be sustained.  We are also of the                
          view that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of              
          skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of                  
          ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as               
          set forth in claims 1, 7-11, 37, 40, 46-50, 76 and 79-93.  We               
          reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 14-25,                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007