Appeal No. 1996-3903 Page 9
Application No. 08/305,225
obvious. Nor are the alternative limitations of claim 50 of the present application deemed
obvious in view U.S. Patent 5,416,657. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 43-52 under obvious-type double patenting.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 33-52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed pro forma with respect to claims 33-44 and on the merits with respect
to claims 43-52; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 33-52 under obvious-type
double patenting is reversed pro forma with respect to claims 33-42 and on the merits
with respect to claims 43-52; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 33-42 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007