Appeal No. 2000-1941
Application 08/567,128
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 10, 16, 19, 22
and 25 based on the ground of double patenting. These claims
stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 8]. In the
rejection before the final rejection, the only double patenting
rejection of the claims was termed a non-statutory double
patenting rejection, and In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ
210 (CCPA 1968) was cited. In the final rejection, this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007