Appeal No. 1997-1236
Application No. 08/212,385
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness and obvious double patenting relied
upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obvious double patenting of appealed claims 1-20. We
are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
2A reply brief was filed by appellant on September 16,
1996 which was denied entry by the examiner [Paper no. 19 sent
October 21, 1996]. Accordingly, we have not considered the
reply brief in rendering this decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007