Appeal No. 97-1691
Application No. 08/519,375
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rieger in view of Strömberg.
The arguments of the appellant and examiner in support of
their respective positions may be found on pages 9-16 of the
brief, pages 1-4 of the reply brief and pages 6-9 of the
answer. As evidence of nonobviousness the appellant has
relied on an affidavit by Bender.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief, and by
the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review,
we will sustain the rejection under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. We will not,
however, sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007