Appeal No. 1998-0346
Application No. 08/718,653
Ramamurthi et al. (Ramamurthi) 5,306,555 Apr. 26, 1994
(filed Jun. 26, 1992)
Heung et al. (Heung) 5,411,928 May 2, 1995
(filed May 24, 1993)
Claims 20, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32-34, 36 and 37 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Heung.
Additionally, claims “20-22, 24 and 36-37 [sic, 26-37] are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ramamurthi” (answer, page 3).
As indicated on page 6 of the brief, the appellants have
grouped the appealed claims together in accordance with the
manner in which these claims have been grouped in the rejections
above.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the examiner’s
obviousness-type double patenting rejection but not her section
103 rejection.
On this appeal, the appellants have not contested the merits
of the double patenting rejection on a technical or factual
basis. Instead, it is the appellants’ basic position that an
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is unnecessary and
inappropriate under the circumstances of this case.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007