Appeal No. 1996-0875
Application No. 08/169,918
the Young patent, since the respective appealed and patented
claims, when properly construed, cover common subject matter.
The examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims based on
the grounds of obviousness-type double patenting is sustained.
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of any further prosecution of this
application, the examiner should reconsider the reapplication
of the Young patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 against the appealed
claims. This patent qualifies as prior art against the
presently appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). A
rejection of the claims under this section of the statute was
“dropped” by the examiner without explanation. See Paper No.
5 entered January 30, 1995. No time period for
taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JOHN D. SMITH )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007