Appeal No. 2001-2353
Application No. 09/411,370
Rather than reiterate the details of the above-noted
rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we refer to
the final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed October 17, 2000), the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed March 12, 2001) and to
appellants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed March 2, 2001) and reply
brief (Paper No. 14, filed May 1, 2001) for a full exposition
thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration of appellants' specification and
claims, the teachings of the applied references and each of the
arguments and comments advanced by appellants and the examiner,
we have reached the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's provisional rejection of
claim 1 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting, we observe that the examiner has not identified
the differences between claim 1 of the present application and
claims 1 through 3 of appellants' co-pending application
No. 09/411,369, or provided reasons why any such differences
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007