Appeal No. 2000-0002
Application 08/848,477
The references of record which are being relied on by the
examiner as evidence of lack of novelty and as evidence of
obviousness are:
McElroy 5,336,297 August 9,
1994 Cashman 5,709,730
January 20, 1998
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 21, 22 and 24 through 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by McElroy or, in the
alternative, as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 from
McElroy. Claims 1, 21, 22 and 24 through 30 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1 through 22 of appellant's prior
patent U.S. patent Number 5,709,730.
Additionally, the examiner has objected to claims 22, 24,
26, 27, 28 and 30 as being "substantial duplicates" of the
claims from which they depend because, in the words of the
examiner:
the process limitations in these claims do not
further limit the products of Claims 1, 21 and 29
because it has been held that the addition of a
method step in a product claim cannot impart
patentability to an old product, In re Dilnot, 133
USPQ 289 [Examiner’s Answer, page 2].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007