Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
1960
(Setzekorn)
Lindquist et al. 4,826,644 May 2,
1989
(Lindquist)
Claims 89 through 156 stand rejected as being unduly
multiplied.1
Claims 93, 107, 108, 111, 112, 119, 127, 133 and 134
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Lindquist.
Claims 93, 108, 111 and 127 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Searle.
1This rejection based on undue multiplicity has not been
expressly restated by the examiner in the final rejection
(Paper No. 54, mailed April 15, 1997), or in his answer (Paper
No. 57, mailed September 3, 1997). However, we note that in
his answer the examiner indicates that [t]he appellants[’]
statement of the issues in the brief is correct” (Paper No.
57, page 2) and that “[t]he question of undo [sic, undue]
multiplicity has been addressed in papers #49 and #51" (Paper
No. 57, page 7). Thus, it is apparent that the examiner has
maintained this rejection and that appellants are seeking our
review of the examiner’s position in this appeal.
Accordingly, we will treat claims 89 through 156 as standing
rejected for being unduly multiplied, as indicated.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007