Appeal No. 1998-1987
Application No. 07/915,783
Summary
We affirm the rejection for obviousness-type double patenting because
Appellant has not contested it. We also affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 because the prior art products reasonably appear to meet all the limitations
of claim 68. However, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because the examiner has not shown that the claimed products lack
utility or that undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope
of the claims. We also reverse the rejection of claims 84-88 and 90-100 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because the prior art would not have motivated those skilled in
the art to carry out the claimed process. Therefore, claims 84-88 and 90-100 are
not subject to any outstanding rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED IN PART
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
DEMETRA J. MILLS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007