Appeal No. 1996-3348
Application No. 08/139195
Claims 13-15 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 14, 15, 17
and 18 of copending application Serial No. 07/948,350.
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, and
we affirm the obvious-type double patenting rejection.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the Answer for the examiner’s
reasoning in support of the rejection. We further reference the Brief (Paper No. 17, filed
December 29, 1995) for appellant’s arguments in favor of patentability.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, concerning adequate written
support for the claims:
Claims 13-15:
The examiner maintains that the limitations added to claim 13, by the amendments
filed February 17, 1994 (Paper No. 7) and March 10, 1995 (Paper No. 10) effectively
broaden the scope of claim 13 to include subject matter not originally disclosed in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007