Appeal No. 1998-2439
Application 08/495,286
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over 1-10 of U.S. Patent 5,500,048 (Murch ‘048) in
view of Bossert and Savage.
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent 5,500,143 (Murch
‘143) in view of Bossert and Savage.
Claims 1-13 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 6-8 of co-pending Application
No. 08/568,410 in view of Bossert and Savage.2
We note that the examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph rejection. (answer, page 3).
OPINION
We have carefully considered all the arguments advanced by
appellants and by the examiner. Our decision based on this
review is set forth below.
In an effort to streamline this decision, we note that on
page 3 of the brief, appellants have indicated that each of the
obviousness-type double patenting rejections (including the
provisional rejection) will be overcome by a terminal disclaimer
when patentable subject matter is identified. Hence, as
indicated on page 8 of the answer, the obviousness-type double
patenting rejections are proper and have not been contested by
appellants, and thus we need not discuss these rejections
2 Co-pending Application No. 08/568,410 has issued as U.S. Patent 6,345,634.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007