Appeal No. 96-0663
Application No. 08/253,618
The examiner relies on the following references:
Bartlett et al. (Bartlett) 4,928,192 May 22, 1990
(filed Dec. 23, 1987)
Nigam 4,933,795 Jun. 12, 1990
(filed Dec. 7, 1987)
Williams et al. (Williams) 4,969,058 Nov. 6, 1990
(filed Nov. 10, 1988)
Claims 14, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Nigam, Williams
and Bartlett.
Claims 14, 17 and 18 stand further rejected under
obviousness-type double patenting over claim 22 of Williams in
view of Nigam and Bartlett.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections in this case because it
is clear to us that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case with respect either to obviousness or to obviousness-
type double patenting.
The instant claims are drawn to fairly detailed methods.
Yet the examiner has merely pointed to a few structural features
of Nigam, without even pointing out to which instant claimed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007