Appeal No. 94-2153
Application 07/333,362
The claims stand rejected as follows:2
I. Claims 16 through 18, 21 through 27, and 30 through 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over McNulty in view of Bosone, Takahashi ‘582, and Takahashi
‘514, and,
II. Claims 16 through 18, 21 through 27, and 30 through 32 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1
and 2 of Carley.
Discussion
1. Preliminary issue
This is the second appeal in this application. The previous appeal, Appeal No.
91-0802, resulted in a decision by a merits panel of this board reversing the rejections
then pending under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See, Decision on Appeal, Paper No. 12, March 6,
1992.
2In addition to the two rejections, the examiner has objected to the
specification under 35 U.S.C. § 132 and § 112, first paragraph, on pages 3 and 4 of the
Examiner’s Answer. However, the examiner has not rejected the claims based upon
either objection. Objections to the specification are petitionable, not appealable.
Therefore, the issues raised by the examiner in objecting to the specification are not
before us for decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007