Appeal No. 1996-1782
Application 08/131,036
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martens
considered with one of Nakasuga ‘981, Nakasuga ‘180, Yada and
Bartissol.
OPINION
Appellants do not challenge the provisional obviousness-
type double patenting rejection (brief, page 5). We therefore
summarily affirm this rejection.
As for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we have
carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by
appellants and the examiner and agree with the examiner that
appellants’ claimed invention is unpatentable over the applied
prior art. We affirm the aforementioned rejection. However,
because our rationale differs substantially from that of the
examiner, we denominate the affirmance as involving a new
ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together
(brief, page 9). We therefore limit our discussion to one
claim, namely, claim 1. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566
n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007