Appeal No. 1998-1283
Application No. 08/449,731
The examiner has relied on no references in rejecting the claims on appeal.
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 19, 20, 52, 53, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a disclosure which is not enabling for the subject claimed.
1
Claim 64 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention as
claim 64 of copending Application No. 08/450,582.
1
Claims 19, 20, 52, and 53 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 64 and 65 of
copending Application No. 08/450,582.
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and dismiss the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting.
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 October 2,
1997 (Paper No. 17) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
appellants’ Brief on Appeal filed May 19, 1997 (Paper No. 16) and Reply Brief filed
December 2, 1997 (Paper No. 18) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
1Since the filing of this appeal, Application No. 08/450,582 has issued as U.S.
Patent 6,114,124 on September 5, 2000. Therefore this rejection is no long “provisional”
in nature.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007