Appeal No. 1998-1298
Application 08/544,962
comments as to Issue 5 in the response to the Remand); what
would have been obvious based upon the applied prior art is
determinative.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection
We do not sustain this rejection of appellants’ claims.
The examiner sets forth respective blanket statements in
the final rejection and in “Issue 6" in the response to the
Remand (Paper No. 27) to the effect that appellants’ claims 1,
2, 5, 6, 11, 13, and 14 on appeal cover the same invention in
that they only vary in obvious variations in breadth and
scope, with slightly different wording, as patented claims 1
through 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,588,522.
Appellants offer particular reasons as to why the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is unsound (main
brief, pages 24 through 26).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007