Appeal No. 1998-3003 Page 4
Application No. 08/589,621
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1 through 18 of Watson.2
Claims 1, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Fuentes.
Claims 2 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Fuentes.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fuentes in view of Buchanan.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the first Office action
2This rejection is set forth in the supplemental final
rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed September 2, 1997). The
rejection of claims 1 through 8 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1
through 19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,237,771 made in the first
Office action (Paper No. 5, mailed January 16, 1997) is not
before us in this appeal since this rejection was not made in
the supplemental final rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007