Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
Thus, having now carefully considered all of the evidence
of nonobviousness supplied by appellant, and weighed that
evidence along with the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner, we reach the conclusion that appellant's
invention as set forth in claims 40 through 49, 52 and 53 on
appeal would not have been obvious to the person of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
evidence of nonobviousness taken as a whole, in our view,
clearly outweighs the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner.
In summary:
The examiner’s provisional rejection of claims 40 through
49 and 53 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12-17, 19-32 and 35 of copending Application
No. 08/752,529 is sustained.
The examiner's rejection of claims 13 through 20, 26
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007