Appeal No. 95-0808
Application 08/048,866
U.S.C. § 102(e) over Basil, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fujioka
in view of Schroeder, and under the judicially-created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20
of Basil, and reversed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
and second paragraphs. 2
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with the
examiner that appellants’ claimed invention is anticipated by
Basil and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention over Fujioka in
view of Schroeder. Accordingly, the aforementioned3
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103 are affirmed.
However, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs.
2In the present case, an obviousness-type double
patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of Basil has been
overcome by a terminal disclaimer (advisory action mailed on
February 18, 1994, paper no. 6).
3Appellants’ reply brief was not entered by the examiner
(letter mailed on August 26, 1994, paper no. 11) and,
therefore, is not before us for consideration.
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007