Appeal No. 1996-1838 Page 4
Application No. 08/119,655
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
brief (Paper No. 19, filed September 18, 1995) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, and to the respective positions set forth by the
appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 8, 10, 11, 32, 34, 35, 37, 54 to
59 and 61 to 65 under the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting must be reversed. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
Double patenting is a legal doctrine that forbids an
inventor from obtaining a second valid patent for either the
same invention or an obvious modification of the same
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007