Appeal No. 1996-4035 Page 11
Application No. 08/257,431
obviousness. Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner's9
rejection of appealed independent claim 1 and claims 4-10 and
13-25 which refere back to claim 1.
We have also reviewed the prior art applied in the
rejection of claims 2 and 3 but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiencies of Schirmer, Isaka and Wavin
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claims 2
and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to
provisionally reject claims 22-25 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-10 and 13-25 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
9Note In re Rijckaert, supra; In re Lintner, supra; and
In re Fine, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007