Appeal No. 2000-1024 Page 4
Application No. 08/379,551
stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,650,510 (the ’510 patent) as
combined with Yu (EP or US), Holy (EP), Starrett and Karrer. Finally, claims 1,
4, 6, 70, 72, 85, 91, 93 and 94 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of
copending Application No. 07/925,610. After careful review of the record and
consideration of the issues before us, we reverse all of the rejections of record
except the provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejection of claims 1,
4, 6, 70, 72, 85, 91, 93 and 94 over copending Application No. 07/925,610.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 45-48, 55, 63, 65, 70, 72, 73, 75, 85, 91, 93 and 94
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination
of Holy (US), Webb (EP or US), Yu (EP or US), Starrett, Holy (EP) and Karrer.
In addition, the obviousness-type double patenting rejections over the ’716
patent and the ’510 patent as combined with Yu (EP or US), Holy (EP), Starrett
and Karrer are included in the analysis of the rejection over the combination of
Holy (US), Webb (EP or US), Yu (EP or US), Starrett, Holy (EP) and Karrer as
the rejections state that the claims of the patents are “obvious variant[s] of that
claimed herein as discussed in the above 103 rejection.” Examiner’s Answer,
page 7. In addition, appellants rely on the patentability of the end product to
overcome the rejection of claims 12-19 over the combination of Holy (US), Holy
(EP), Webb (EP or US), Vemishetti (US), Alexander (US), Yu (US or EP) and the
Merck Index. Thus, that rejection is also encompassed by the following analysis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007