Appeal No. 1997-0413
Application No. 08/231,570
Claims 16 through 33 stand provisionally rejected under
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1 through 12, 14, 16, 18 and 22 through 24 of copending
Application Serial No. 07/767,178 in view of Lowell.
Claims 16 through 33 stand further rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites
Wells and Lowell with regard to claims 16 through 19, 21, 27,
28, 30 and 33, adding Villa-Real with regard to claim 20,
Brennan with regard to claims 22 through 24, Tanielian with
regard to claims 25, 26, 31 and 32, and Igaki with regard to
claim 29.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we reverse the rejection of claims 16
through 33 under obviousness-type double patenting as being
moot since the copending Application Serial No. 07/767,178 has
since been abandoned.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 31 and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as relying on a nonenabling
disclosure, we will also reverse this rejection for the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007