Appeal No. 95-0331
Application No. 07/626,904
In support of her double patenting rejections, the
examiner has also relied upon the claims of U.S. 4,916,169
(Boardman) and the claims of Application 07/627,009 . 3
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under the4
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over the claims
of Boardman in view of Drahnak, Eckberg and McDowell.
All of the claims on appeal also are provisionally
rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over the claims of the ‘009 application in view of
Drahnak, Eckberg and McDowell.
All appealed claims except claims 10, 29, 78 and 84 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Drahnak taken with Eckberg in view of McDowell or Gruber or
alternatively in view of only McDowell.
3The examiner’s provisional rejection under the doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of
Application 07/626,905 has been nullified by the fact that
this application is now abandoned.
4We observe that dependent claim 62 does not appear to
further restrict parent claim 24 as required by the fourth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The appellants and the examiner
should address and resolve this issue in any further
prosecution that may occur.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007