Appeal No. 1998-0671
Application 08/285,328
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-14 and 17-19 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-
15 of Application 08/285,324 ('324 application), now abandoned
(refiled as continuation Application 08/979,320), and claims 1-13 of
Application 08/285,326 ('326 application), now U.S. Patent 5,608,821
('821 patent), issued March 4, 1997.
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eschbach and the APA.
We refer to the second Office action (Paper No. 8), the final
rejection (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "FR__"), and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 20) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a
statement of the Examiner's position and to the appeal brief (Paper
No. 19) (pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Double patenting
Initially, we note that the Examiner should have provided
copies of the two sets of application claims as part of the
provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Obviousness-type double patenting is based on the claims. In the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007