Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
The reasoning set forth above in determining that the
subject matter of claims 3, 9 and 10 is not patentably
distinct from the subject matter of claims 13 and 14 of the
Farris I patent in view of Farris II, which is incorporated
herein, also mandates a conclusion that the subject matter of
claim 2, from which claims 3, 9 and 10 depend, is likewise not
patentably distinct from claims 13 and 14 of the Farris I
patent in view of Farris II.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the examiner's decision to reject claims 2
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Farris
I, claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Farris I in view of Farris II and claims 3, 9 and 10
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Farris I in view of Farris II is affirmed. The examiner's
rejections of claims 1 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/103 as
being anticipated by or unpatentable over Farris I and claims
1, 2 and 4-8 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
the claims of Farris I are reversed. New rejections of claims
28
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007