Appeal No. 1997-3358 Page 4
Application No. 08/477,742
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Choy in view of
Eikill further in view of Jacobson. Rather than repeat the
arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the
reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellant and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are not persuaded that the
examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 21-23 and 25-
34 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting. We are persuaded, however, that he erred in
rejecting claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part. Our opinion addresses the following issues
seriatim:
• obviousness-type double patenting of claims 21-
23 and 25-34
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007