Appeal No. 1997-0581
Application No. 08/168,549
(3) Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of one of Strait and Kelusky and one of
Knowles and Stuart.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude
that only the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 through
12 over the disclosure of Strait or Kelusky is well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain only this rejection.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 13 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims
1 through 13 of Application 08/168,560. We determine that
this obviousness-type double patenting rejection is moot since
Application 08/168,560 is no longer pending.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
disclosure of Strait or Kelusky. We will sustain this
rejection for essentially those findings of fact and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007