Appeal No. 1998-0942
Application No. 08/324,038
Claims 9, 23 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Eggleden in view of Villa-Real, Brennan,
Nishizawa, Tanielian and Honma.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the provisional double patenting
rejections, we will not sustain these rejections as we do not
find a prima facie case of obviousness-type double patenting
established by the examiner.
In the first place, the statement of rejection against
claims 1-8, 10-22, 24-26 and 28 under obviousness-type double
patenting is not clear since it is confusing as to what is
being referenced by "claims 1-12 and 14-18" in the statement
of rejection. We would normally remand for an explanation but
appellants appear to understand the rejection to refer to an
alternative rejection based on either claims 16-33 of
Application Serial No. 08/231,570 OR claims 1-12 and 14-18 of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007