Appeal No. 1998-2129 Page 3
Application No. 08/561,816
In addition, the examiner relies on several claims of the
following patent as evidence of obviousness type double
patenting:
Lassiter Re. 35,603 Sep. 16, 1997
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Meeker. Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerfass in view of
Meeker. Claims 1-7 are rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 21 of Lassiter (Re. 35,603)
in view of Meeker.
OPINION
We refer to the appellant’s brief and to the answer for
the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellant and the
examiner concerning the above noted rejections. For the
reasons which follow, we will not sustain the examiner's §§
102(b) or 103(a) rejections as expressed in the answer.
However, we shall sustain the rejection of claims 1-7 over
claims 1, 10 and 21 of Lassiter in view of Meeker based on the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007