Appeal No. 95-2441
Application 07/987,211
Claims 1-13 and 26-29 for obviousness-type double patenting of
Claims 1-12 of Klose, U.S. 5,190,775, patented March 2, 1993.
Conclusion
We reverse the examiner’s rejections of Claims 1, 6-13
and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by, or under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable in view of, the teaching of
Ghebre-Sellassie.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-13 and
26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable in view of
the combined teachings of Sibbald, Iijima, UK Patent
Specification 765,885, and Hawley.
Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we hereby newly reject Claims 1-
13 and 26-29 for obviousness-type double patenting of Claims
1-12 of Klose, U.S. 5,190,775, patented March 2, 1993.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of rejection shall not
be considered final for purposes of judicial review.”
- 14 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007