Appeal No. 1996-0328
Application 08/060,891
E. Summary of Decisions
The rejection of claims 1, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, 27-31 and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Lustig, Warren, Steinert, Machon, Kohyama, Tominari, Sugahara
and Durand patents is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 11, 22, 26, 32 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combination of Lustig, Warren, Steinert, Machon, Kohyama, Tominari, Sugahara and Durand patents is
reversed.
The rejections of claims 15, 18, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combination of Lustig, Warren, Steinert, Machon and Kohyama patents and over the combination of
Lustig, Warren, Beran and Karol patents are reversed.
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 7-22 and 26-36 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16-20, 22-36 and 62 of
copending application Serial No. 08/060,783 is affirmed.
A new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claim 36 is rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicants regard as their invention.
F. Time for taking action
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). 37 CFR §
1.196 (b) provides that, “a new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for the purposes of judicial
review.”
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new
ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 CFR § 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
26
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007