Appeal No. 2000-1868
Application No. 08/730,217
examiner’s rejection for obviousness-type double patenting over
this application since this judicially created doctrine was
created to prevent undue extension of a patent term, which is now
impossible since S.N. 08/907,058 is abandoned.
Even assuming arguendo that the examiner’s factual findings
from each primary reference (and application) are correct, we
cannot sustain the rejections on appeal since we disagree with
the examiner’s factual findings and conclusions of law based on
the secondary references applied in every rejection on appeal,
namely Cambridge and Andrews.
The examiner finds that “Cambridge and Andrews each teach
heating alumina in air to remove chlorine from the alumina (cols.
3 and 7; and col. 7, respectively).” Answer, page 3 (see also
the Answer, each of pages 4-10). The examiner combines these
references with each primary reference or application to show the
obviousness of the claimed process step where halogen is removed
by heating the alpha alumina powder containing the halogen in an
atmosphere of air or inert gas or at reduced pressure at a
specified temperature (e.g., see claims 1 and 18; Answer, page
3). We do not agree with the examiner’s analysis of the
Cambridge and Andrews references. Furthermore, we determine that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007