Appeal No. 1997-1970
Application 08/268,732
The following rejection is the sole rejection before us
for review.3
Claims 21 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Geraldine.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection (page 4) and the answer (Paper Nos. 10 and 21),
while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can be
found in the brief (Paper No. 20).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims 21 through 24,
3The final rejection of a) claims 21 through 30 under the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting, of b) claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Garcia, and of c) claims 21 through 30 as being unpatentable over Marasco
in view of Swedish Patent No. 165,200 were obviously overcome and not carried forward by
the examiner into the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007