Appeal No. 94-2894
Application 07/725,222
564-65, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975). Again, it will suffice for us to point out that the
examiner has failed to present a reasoned, fact supported explanation why one skilled in
the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the term "lower
alkanol."
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, are reversed.
New Grounds of Rejection Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we make the following new grounds of
rejection.
1. Obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims 2, 5 through 7, and 9 through 15 are rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting on the basis of the claims of the '654
patent.
The claims of the '654 patent correspond to those pending in this application with
the exception that the patented claims are limited to the presence of ethanol while the
claims pending in this application require the presence of lower alkanols. Since ethanol is
a lower alkanol, it should be beyond dispute that the claims in this application are an
obvious variation of the claims of the '654 patent.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007