Appeal No. 96-1997
Application No. 08/176,614
readily appreciated the broader method recited in appealed claim
8 as obvious from the more specific method of the patent claim.
We note that the law presumes skill on the part of the artisan
rather than the converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
This new rejection of appealed claim 8 may be overcome by an
appropriately filed terminal disclaimer.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed, and a new rejection has
been made of claim 8 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting pursuant to the provisions of
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Any request for reconsideration or modification of this
decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based
upon the same record must be filed within one month from the date
of the decision. 37 CFR § 1.197. Should appellant elect to have
further prosecution before the examiner in response to the new
rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) by way of amendment or showing
of facts, or both, not previously of record, a shortened
statutory period for making such response is hereby set to expire
two months from the date of this decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007