Appeal No. 96-3225
Application 08/229,322
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 16 through 30 stand provisionally rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 38 of
copending application Serial No. 08/241,508 in view of the
Danish reference, Palmquist, Bingham and Belisle.
Claims 16 through 18, 21 through 23, 25 and 27 through 30
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the Danish reference in view of Palmquist.
Claims 19, 20 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the Danish reference in view of
Palmquist and Bingham.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the Danish reference in view of Palmquist
and Belisle.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Appeal Brief.
OPINION
The Double Patenting Rejection
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007