Appeal No. 95-0331
Application No. 07/626,904
Finally, “[c]laims 10, 29, 78 and 84 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Drahnak and Eckberg
as applied to claims 9, 28, 77 and 83 above, and further in
view of Boardman ‘169" (Answer, page 13).
As a preliminary matter, we point out that the appellants
have stated that the appealed claims stand or fall together;
see page 10 of the Brief.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the
above noted rejections except for the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 10, 29, 78 and 84.
THE OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
It is appropriate to initially address the appellants’
argument that, “[a]ccording to In re Braat, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1289
(Fed. Cir. 1991), a ‘two-way’ determination is necessary in
order to sustain a rejection for obviousness-type double
patenting” (Brief, page 11). This is incorrect. In fact,
under the circumstances of the case at bar, a “one-way”
analysis is the proper test for assessing the merits of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007