Appeal No. 97-1442
Application 08/353,631
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-10, 16 and 22-24 of U.S. Patent No. 5,345,865.
Claims 1-2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Domotor in
view of Shepherd.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the rejections, we
make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 14) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13) and reply brief (Paper No. 15)
for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s claimed subject matter as described in the
specification, the appealed claims, the prior art references applied by the examiner, the evidence
submitted by the appellant and the respective positions advanced by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting based on claims 9-10, 16 and 22-24 of U.S. Patent No.5,345,865. We note that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007