Appeal No. 1998-1298
Application 08/544,962
What we do not have before us for review, however, is an
explicit claim by claim analysis by the examiner of each of
appellants’ claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, and 16, specifically
ascertaining the differences between those claims and
particular claims from among claims 1 through 20 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,588,522, with a substantive foundation being
provided in support of a conclusion that each particular claim
on appeal would have been an obvious variation of a
corresponding patented claim. Also absent are specific
comments by the examiner about the particular argument
advanced by appellants in the main brief. Since the examiner
has not provided the referenced essential claim by claim
analysis, in particular, the foundation of an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection is lacking. Thus, the rejection
cannot be sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007