Appeal No. 2000-1743
Application No. 09/314,618
As stated in the final rejection (Paper No. 3, mailed
July 16, 1999) and the advisory action (Paper No. 6), claims 1
through 8 also stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over the claims of several different prior U.S.
patents. See pages 6 through 8 of the final rejection for the
details.2
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 3) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
9, mailed December 30, 1999) for the reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed
claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2While the examiner has not expressly repeated each of
these rejections in the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9), it is
clear from a review of the final rejection, appellant's brief
(Paper No. 8) and the totality of the examiner's answer that
the double patenting rejections based on the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting are
still valid rejections and, given appellant's Notice of
Appeal, are before us in this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007