Appeal No. 1997-3275
Application No. 07/963,329
Grounds of Rejection
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on
a non-enabling disclosure.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies on Fryklund, Sara, Fellows, Hansson, Ocrant, Leeson, and Fingl.
Claim 1 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on Lewis, Ocrant,
Leschey, Yorek, and Fingl.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies on Lewis, Ocrant, Leschey, Yorek, and Fingl.
We reverse these rejections for the reasons set forth herein.
Discussion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the Examiner's Answer of December
12, 1995 (Paper No. 30) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer of May 14, 1996
(Paper No. 33) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
appellants' Appeal Brief, filed August 22, 1995 (Paper No. 29), and Reply Brief, filed
January 2, 1996 (Paper No. 31) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007