Appeal No. 1999-0189
Application No. 08/344,691
helpful for an explanation by the examiner as to why no other
evidence of obviousness was needed beyond the claims of the
patent. In the absence of such a showing or a convincing line
of reasoning by the examiner, we agree with the appellant that
the added feature in these application claims “is not present
in any of the claims of the ‘131 patent. . . .” and that these
claims are “independent and distinct” (i.e., patentably
distinct) inventions (Brief, pages 16 and 17).
As a result of the patentable distinctness between the
application claims and the patent claims, the examiner could
have made a restriction requirement in the originally filed
application.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007