Appeal No. 1996-2240
Application No. 08/105,482
suggestion to combine the references in the manner proposed comes from appellant’s
specification. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 through 32 as obvious over Matson
1987 and Seltzer is reversed.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 through 20 have been provisionally rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 through 20 of copending application
serial no. 08/092,543 (‘543). The present claims are directed to “screening,” while the
claims of the ‘543 application are directed to “diagnosis.” The examiner sets forth the
obviousness relationship between these sets of claims and provides tenable reasoning.
See the Examiner’s Answer, the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10. Appellant does not
counter the examiner’s reasoning, arguing only that the limitation “to screen said disorders”
is not found in claim 1 of the ‘543 application and therefore “would not be anticipated or
rendered obvious by claims 1-20 of the Appellant’s copending ‘543
application.” See pages 26 and 27 of the Brief. This general argument does not
controvert the examiner’s position with a reasonable degree of specificity. Accordingly,
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007