Appeal No. 96-1231
Application 08/165,143
08/177,837. Because Application 08/177,837 has issued as a
patent, i.e., Cava ‘530, we treat this rejection as an
obviousness-type double patenting
rejection over claims 1-5 of that patent. Appellants’ claims
1 and 3-6 also stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of
Cava ‘755.
OPINION
Appellants do not contest the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 over claims 1-5 of
Cava ‘530. We therefore summarily affirm this rejection.
As for the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 1 and 3-6 over claim 1 of Cava ‘755, we have carefully
considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the
examiner and agree with appellants that this rejection is not
well founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
The superconducting material recited in appellants’
claims has a general formula which requires 1 to 4 atomic
units of boron and an atomic ratio of carbon to boron in the
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007