Appeal No. 97-2020
Application 07/957,107
of the obviousness inquiry and is improper. Gillette Co. v.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 919 F.2d 720, 725, 16 USPQ2d 1923,
1928 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2 through 7, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view
of De Jule. Furthermore, we note that the Examiner relies on
the same reasons for combinability in the rejection of claim
16. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted
prior art in view of De Jule and further in view of Williams.
Claims 2 through 7 and 14 through 16 are
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 and 12 of copending application Serial No.
07/957,106. We note that these claims are before this panel
in Appeal No. 96-2591. In that appeal, we have determined
that we cannot ascertain the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007