Appeal No. 1995-5117
Application No. 08/067,154
claims, taken from the appendix of the appellants’ brief, is
attached to this decision.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
in the rejections before us:
Weber et al. 5,122,295 Jun. 16, 1992
(Weber) (PCT filed Oct. 17, 1989)
Rieger et al. 5,286,411 Feb. 15, 1994
(PCT filed Apr. 12, 1991)
Claims 4, 5 and 12 are rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1 and 7 of the Rieger patent.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 13 through 16 and 18 through 20 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Weber.
The appellants have separately grouped the claims before
us in the manner indicated on page 3 of the brief, and we will
separately consider the appealed claims as separately grouped
by the appellants. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above
noted rejections.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007