Appeal No. 96-2425
Application 08/094,933
1992)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-9 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-9 of Bolton; claims 1-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Bolton; and claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Bolton.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with the
examiner that the reaction product recited in appellants’
claim 9 is anticipated by and obvious over Bolton, and obvious
over Bolton’s claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain all of the
aforementioned rejections of claim 9. We agree with
appellants, however, that the rejections of claims 1-8 are not
well founded. We therefore do not sustain these rejections.
Rejections of claim 9
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007