Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after careful review of the evidence
before us, that claims 24 through 31, 34 through 45, 56, and 57
are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 32, 33, 46 through
54, and 79 through 82. We further find that claims 24 through
54, 56, 57, and 79 through 82 are properly rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting. Accordingly, we affirm.
At the outset, we note that Appellants on page 5 of the
brief point out the groupings of the claims. 37 C.F.R. §
1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 1996) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 4, 1996.
Appellants also filed a reply brief on February 25, 1997. On
May 9, 1997, the Examiner mailed a communication stating that
the reply brief has not been entered.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007