Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
(5) Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-14 of Farris I.
(6) Claims 3, 9 and 10 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-14 of Farris I in view of Farris
II.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper
Nos. 12 and 14) and the final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
7 and 13) for the respective positions of the appellant 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 appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that, notwithstanding the
appellant's groupings as set forth on page 9 of the brief, the
appellant has not argued separately the patentability of claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007