Appeal No. 1997-1281
Application No. 08/317,830
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that only the
examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting are well founded. Accordingly,
we reverse the examiner’s § 102 rejection based on Loder, but
affirm all of the aforementioned § 103 rejections and
obviousness-type double patenting rejection for essentially those
reasons set forth in the Answer. We add the following primarily
for emphasis and completeness.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 20, 28 through 35, 38
through 39, 41, 42, 47, 50 through 53, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 65
through 74 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as unpatentable over the claims of Hodak
‘226, Hodak ‘152 and Edwards ‘242. As stated by our reviewing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007