Appeal No. 1996-2734 Page 10
Application No. 08/133,680
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 15-19.
In essentially lock step with their arguments regarding
the § 103 rejection discussed above, appellants argue the
examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection based
on alleged differences between the herein claimed reducing
agent and weak acid of Schwartzkopf (brief, pages 9 and 10).
Appellants’ viewpoint on this issue is consistent in that, in
obviousness-type double patenting rejections, the analysis
employed parallels the guidelines for analysis of a § 103
obviousness determination. See In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887,
892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Given that the
claims at issue in the Schwartzkopf patent call for a
composition which includes a solvent, nucleophilic amine and
weak acid such as resorcinol (see, e.g.
claims 1 and 5 of Schwartzkopf), we shall likewise affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 15-19 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting for
reasons that follow from those discussed above.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007