Appeal No. 1996-3903 Page 3
Application No. 08/305,225
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Comery 2,946,609 July 26, 1960
2
Fickenwirth et al. (Fickenwirth) 3,700,297 Oct. 24, 1972
Bender 4,426,090 Jan. 17, 1984
Lederman 4,722,616 Feb. 2, 1988
Albert 5,046,868 Sept. 10, 1991
3
Claims 33-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being unpatentable as
failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the invention. Claims 33-52 stand
rejected under judicially created doctrine of obvious-type double patenting
4
over serial number 07/922,290. Claims 33, 35-38, 41 and 50-51 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fickenwirth. Claims 34, 42- 44 and 46-47 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fickenwirth in view of
Lederman. Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fickenwirth in view of Comery. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fickenwirth in view of Bender. Claims 40 and 52 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fickenwirth in view of Albert. Claim 45
We note that Fickenwirth has been referenced throughout the briefs and answers as2
“Fickenworth,” but we refer to this reference as “Fickenwirth.”
We note that claims 37, 44 and 51 refer to “said annual elastic member,” but we understand this3
limitation to refer to “said annular elastic member” for proper antecedent basis.
Serial Number 07/922,290 matured into US Patent 5,416,657 and we evaluate the double4
patenting based upon the claims as issued therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007