Appeal No. 1999-1924 Page 4
Application No. 08/486,545
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection and the
answer for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 23, filed November 7,
1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed November 30, 1998)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, and to the respective positions set forth by the
appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 1 and 21 to 27 under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting must be
reversed. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Double patenting is a legal doctrine that forbids an
inventor from obtaining a second valid patent for either the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007