Appeal No. 2000-1868
Application No. 08/730,217
Lindsay or Sucech, each taken with Cambridge or Andrews (Answer,
pages 3-7); and
(2) the claims on appeal also stand provisionally rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-9, 25-27, and 29-52 of copending
application S.N. 08/606,679,3 or claims 1-14 of copending
application S.N. 08/922,478, or claims 1-20 of copending
application S.N. 08/907,058, each taken with Cambridge or Andrews
(Answer, pages 8-10).4
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons
set forth below.
OPINION
We first note that the basis of one rejection on appeal is
application S.N. 08/907,058 (Answer, page 10), which is now
abandoned according to Patent & Trademark Office records (see
also the Brief, page 9). Accordingly, we summarily reverse the
3 We note that this application has now matured into U.S. Patent No.
5,935,550.
4 For reasons of judicial economy, we have merged the eight separate
rejections of the examiner (Answer, pages 3-10) into two rejections since each
merged rejection involves the same basis, the same claims and the same
secondary references.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007