Appeal No. 97-2020
Application 07/957,107
MRF:psb
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting-in-Part:
I agree with the majority that the rejection of
claims 2-7 and 14-16 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting should not be sustained.
However, the examiner's decision to reject claims 2-7 and 14-
16 over the admitted prior art in view of De Jule should be
affirmed.
I am of the opinion that the combined prior art
evidences a prima facie case of obviousness which the
appellants have not overcome with argument or evidence. Only
arguments actually made by appellants should be considered in
this decision. 37 CFR § 1.192(a).
The examiner has pointed out the teachings of the
admitted prior art and the De Jule reference. He has
indicated which teachings of the admitted prior art and De
Jule, considered as a whole, render the claims obvious. The
prior art is from the same field of endeavor as appellants
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007