Appeal No. 96-1227
Application 08/134,853
Neill et al. (Neill) 4,033,807 Jul. 5, 1977
Gerlach et al. (Gerlach) 4,035,984 Jul. 19,
1977
Traise et al. (Traise) 5,397,427 Mar. 14, 1995
(filed Oct. 6, 1989)
Claims 2 through 10, 24 and 26 stand rejected:
a) under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1
through 25 of the Traise patent in view of Klar and Gerlach;
b) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Neill
in view of Klar and Gerlach; and
c) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Traise in view of Klar and Gerlach.
Reference is made to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 29 and 31) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 30) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
In response to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, the appellants filed a terminal disclaimer (Paper
No. 32) with their reply brief. The record indicates that
this terminal disclaimer has been reviewed, accepted and duly
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007