Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
We agree with the conclusions reached by the examiner
that the rejections over de Vries and Hayes,(I-II) under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 and the rejections over Haefele (I-II-III) combined with
Ploger (I-II) are well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain
those rejections.
We will also sustain the rejection on the ground of
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting.
The Rejections Over de Vries And Hayes6
As to the rejection of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102, appellants emphatically disagree that either de Vries
or Hayes anticipates the invention as claimed. See Brief,
page 4. We agree. The examiner in the Answer relies on Hayes,
at column 3, lines 50-51, column 7, lines 25-30, 37-39, column
5, line 55, column 6, line 6. He further relies on de Vries,
Hayes(‘504) is a division of Hayes(‘456). We refer in our decision6
to Hayes(‘504).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007