Appeal No. 96-1400
Application No. 08/242,478
and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parrott.2
Having carefully reviewed each of the examiner's
rejections in light of the evidence and the arguments of
record, we fully concur with appellants that the claimed
subject matter as a whole would not have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We also agree with appellants that claims 1, 14 and
17-20 do not run afoul of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Since we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
position espoused by appellants in the principal and reply
briefs on appeal, we will adopt appellants' position as our
own in reversing the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, we
will not belabor the record with further comment other than
inviting the examiner's attention to the decision in In re
Brouwer, 77 F.3d 422, 37 USPQ2d 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1995) as it
applies to the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2The examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 11-13 and
17-19 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting in the Supplemental Answer.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007