Appeal No. 96-1795
Application No. 08/262,745
over Eichenauer I or II is affirmed. The rejection of claims
1, 3, 5-9, 11, 12 and 14 under § 103 as unpatentable over
Lausberg in view of Eichenauer I or II is affirmed. The
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10 and 12-16 under § 103 as
unpatentable over Kodama in view of Eichenauer I or II is
affirmed.
C. The Rejections for Obviousness-type Double Patenting
In obviousness-type double patenting rejections, one must
determine whether the claims of the later filed application
would have been obvious in view of the claims of an earlier
patent. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010,
2015 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Any analysis employed parallels the
guidelines for analysis of a § 103 obviousness determination.
In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592, 19 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 600 n.4, 154 USPQ
29, 34 n.4 (CCPA 1967). Appellants’ arguments regarding the
three obviousness-type double patenting rejections are the
same as discussed above with respect to the corresponding
rejections under § 103 (Brief, pages 14-22). Accordingly, the
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007