Appeal No. 1999-0610 Page 5
Application No. 08/601,186
2. Claims 49 through 60 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 through 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,531,715.
3. Claims 49 through 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Eury.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 13) and the
answer (Paper No. 14) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art 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 indefiniteness rejection
The examiner's basis for rejecting claim 49 as being
indefinite is that the claim contains the closed language
"consisting essentially of" followed by the open-ended
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007