Appeal No. 1998-1664
Application No. 08/323,982
On remand, the examiner should determine whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, given
the subject matter of the patented claims only, to arrive at
the subject matter of appealed claims 1 and 23. If so, the
examiner should explain the reasons in support of a conclusion
of obviousness.
Other Issues
1. If the examiner determines that the obviousness-type
double patenting rejections should be maintained, the
following should be considered.
At pages 2 through 3 of the Office action of January 29,
1996 (paper 10), the examiner rejected (i) claims 1 through 8,
19
through 23, 28 through 35, 44 through 47, and 51 through 56
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Adams and (ii)
claims 1 through 8, 19 through 23, 28 through 33, 44 through
47, 51 through 62, 75 through 77, 81 through 89, 101, and 102
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Blystone. Further,
the examiner rejected claims 1 through 8, 19 through 23, 28
through 33, 44 through 47, 51 through 62, 75 through 77, 81
through 89, 101, and 102 under the judicially created doctrine
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007