Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 31
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that when all
the evidence and arguments before us are considered, the
evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of
obviousness as in Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122
F.3d 1476, 44 USPQ2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and EWP Corp. v.
Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 21 and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection (9)
We sustain the provisional rejection of claims 3-17,
18/4, 18/8, 18/12, 18/16, 19/4, 19/8, 19/12, 19/16, 28-35, and
46/28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention as
that of claims 1, 3-17, 18/1, 18/4, 18/8, 18/12, 18/16, 19/1,
19/4, 19/8, 19/12, 19/16, 28-35, and 46 of copending reissue
Application No. 07/880,899.
In the final rejection (pp. 28-29), the examiner set
forth his rationale as to this rejection.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007