Appeal No. 1998-3003 Page 5
Application No. 08/589,621
(Paper No. 5, mailed January 16, 1997), the supplemental final
rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed September 2, 1997), and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 12, mailed May 22, 1998) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 10, filed January 29,
1998) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The double patenting rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 8
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1 through 18 of Watson.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007