Appeal No. 1998-2224
Application No. 08/624,147
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, “as
containing subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art” that appellants were in
possession of the invention as now claimed (Answer, page 3).
Claims 1-27 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, “as
being indefinite” (id.). Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Tsuchiyama taken with Keefer (id.).
Claims 8-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tsuchiyama taken with Keefer further in view
of Dandekar, JP ‘436, and Dexheimer (Answer, page 4). Claims
1-27 stand rejected under the “judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting” over claims 1-22 of co-
pending application no. 08/419,317 in view of Dexheimer
(Answer, page 5).3
We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections under
sections 112 and 103 essentially for the reasons set forth in
3A decision by this same merits panel was mailed May 14,
2001, in co-pending application no. 08/419,317, which had been
assigned Appeal No. 1998-1219.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007