Appeal No. 97-4293
Application No. 08/138,396
its elements in the “comprising” format, it is not limited to
a single switch. The invention of application claim 41 thus
is not patently distinct from the invention recited in patent
claim 13 but is at best an obvious variation thereof. The
rejection of independent claim 41 and dependent claim 42, the
separate patentability of which was not argued, is sustained.
The double patenting rejection of claims 27-29, 41 and 42
is sustained. It can be overcome only by the filing of a
terminal disclaimer.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 14-16, 18 and 22-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 27-29, 41 and 42 under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007