Appeal No. 95-4004
Application 07/858,171
(3) Whether Woodle is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
and/or § 102(e).
(4) Whether Woodle’s Claims 22-27 are prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f) or § 102(g).
(5) Whether Martin is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(6) Whether Martin's Claims 11-14 are prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f) or § 102(g).
(7) Whether the examiner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 121
from rejecting the claims of this application for obviousness-
type double patenting of Claims 22-27 of Woodle.
(8) Whether the examiner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 121
from rejecting the claims of this application for obviousness-
type double patenting of Claims 11-14 of Martin.
(9) Whether the claims of this application should be
rejected for obviousness-type double patenting of Claims 22-27 of
Woodle.
(10) Whether the claims of this application should be
rejected for obviousness-type double patenting of Claims 11-14 of
Martin.
We remand this application to the examiner to consider and
resolve the questions raised in paragraphs (1) to (10) above.
Without full consideration and resolution of these questions, we
fail to see how the examiner can possibly determine the scope and
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007