Appeal No. 96-3023
Application No. 08/439,284
OPINION
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is
reversed because the claims on appeal are not unpatentable
over claims 1 through 20 in U.S. Patent No. 5,294,930.
The examiner indicates (final rejection, page 3) that
“[a]lthough the conflicting claims are not identical, they are
not patentably distinct from each other because while not
exactly claimed the optical fiber RF storage is disclosed in
the ‘930 patent.” The disclosure of an optical fiber RF
storage in the patent is of no import in an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection because “the patent disclosure may
not be used as prior art.” In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441,
164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
We agree with appellant (paper number 13, pages 3 and 4)
that the claimed invention is concerned with using a stored RF
signal as a “reference” for comparing or “processing”
reflected RF signals or sequential RF signals, and that no
such operation occurs in the claimed invention in U. S. Patent
No. 5,294,930.
A detailed analysis of the two sets of claims reveals
that the claims on appeal are not concerned with “two antenna
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007