Appeal No. 1998-2415 Page 4
Application No. 08/751,798
OPINION
In arriving at our decision on the obviousness issues raised in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to the entire record of this proceeding, including the appellants' specification and claims ,2
the teachings of the applied prior art references, the evidence supplied by appellants, and the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. Having reviewed all of the evidence before us, we
make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellants' brief, on pages 3 and 4, groups the claims as follows:
Group A: claims 1, 5-23, 26-31, 34-36, 40-56, 58, 62-67, 70, 71 , 77, 78, 80-83, 90 and 913
Group B: claims 3, 25, 33, 38, 57, 60, 79 and 89
Group C: claims 4, 39 and 61
Group D claims 72 and 84
Group E claims 73 and 85
Group F: claims 74 and 86
Group G: claims 75 and 87.
2We note that appellants filed a terminal disclaimer (Paper No. 12) disclaiming the part of the term of any
patent issuing on the instant application which would extend beyond the expiration of U.S. Patents No. 5,320,014
and 5,404,777, thereby obviating any obviousness-type double patenting issues.
3Appellants' inclusion of claims 68 and 69 in this grouping was apparently an inadvertent error, since
claims 68 and 69 have been canceled and are not involved in this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007