Appeal No. 94-2097
Application 07/875,630
obviousness-type double patenting over the claims in
application Serial No. 08/009,353; (2) whether the examiner
erred in rejecting all of the appealed claims under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over the claims in U.S. Patent No. 5,019,382; and
(3) whether the examiner erred in rejecting all of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hasegawa or Tompkins.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation
and review of the following materials: (1) the instant
specification, including all of the claims on appeal; (2)
appellant's Brief before the Board; (3) the Examiner's Answer;
(4) the prior art references cited and relied on by the
examiner; (5) the Stewart Declaration, filed under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.132, executed March 20, 1993; (6) the
Cummins Declaration, filed under the provisions of 37 CFR
§ 1.132, executed
March 19, 1993; and (7) the decision, adhered to on
reconsideration, by another merits panel of this Board in
parent application Serial No. 07/044,317 (Appeal No. 90-3336).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007