Appeal No. 1998-3003 Page 21
Application No. 08/589,621
determination of obviousness. Accordingly, the decision of10
the examiner to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 8 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting is reversed; the decision of
the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 7 and
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed; and the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 2 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
10If the use of a choke coil connected to an oscillator
means is known in the art as stated by the examiner, the
examiner should cite that prior art and then should consider
whether or not the subject matter of claim 6 would have been
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 from the combined teachings of
Fuentes, Dugan and this other prior art.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007