Appeal No. 2001-0252
Application 08/760,652
the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the rejections, we refer to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 27, mailed August 13, 1999) and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 25, filed May 25, 1999) and reply
brief (Paper No. 28, filed October 13, 1999) for a full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration of appellant’s specification
and claims, the teachings of the applied references and each
of the arguments and comments advanced by appellant and the
examiner, we have reached the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 21
through 23 and 30 through 32 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, we observe that
the examiner’s position as set forth on page 3 of the answer
is that
[a]lthough the conflicting claims are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007