Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Waters in view of Martin, Kiselewski
and Viner.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Danel in view of Martin and
Kiselewski.
The rejection based on the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting is explained on pages 3-7 of
the final rejection. The rejections based on prior art are
explained on pages 4-15 of the answer. As evidence of
nonobviousness the appellant has relied on an affidavit by
Benyon.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner, the evidence of nonobviousness
supplied by the appellant and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief and by
the examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007