Appeal No. 1997-3650
Application No. 08/206,658
REJECTIONS
Claims 31 through 44, 46 and 47 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as unpatentable over claims 1 through 7 of Rajan. Claims
31 through 44, 46 and 47 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of nonobviousness-type (based on Schneller)
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 through 7 of
Rajan. Claims 31 through 44, 46 and 47 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Kubit in view of Akman or Kato; and Ciccarelli, Brochure,
Operator’s Guide and Bailey.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. As a consequence of this review, we make
the determinations which follow.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
We summarily affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims
31 through 44, 46 and 47 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007