Appeal No. 2001-0252
Application 08/760,652
U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Krajian.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7,
11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Krajian, we observe
that these claims include the limitations noted above in claim
4, and for that reason alone define over the device of
Krajian. Moreover, we agree with appellant’s position that the
examiner’s reasoning regarding modification of the device in
Krajian to meet the limitations of these claims lacks any
evidential basis and stems entirely from speculation and
conjecture. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims
7, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Krajian will also
not be sustained.
In summary:
The examiner's decision rejecting claims 21 through 23
and 30 through 32 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting is reversed.
The examiner's decision rejecting claims 4 through 6 and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007