Appeal No. 1999-1959 Page 2
Application No. 08/881,586
appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art
references of record in rejecting the appealed claims:
De Toledo WO 91/00051 Jan. 10, 1991
(International patent publication)
Miyano 407,965 Jan. 16, 1991
(European patent application)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 28-39 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting based on U.S. Patent No.
5,452,726.
Claims 28-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over De Toledo in view of Miyano.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 24) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 23 and 25) for
Although the final rejection (page 2) indicated that claims 32 and 381
were rejected on the basis of De Toledo alone, it is apparent from appellants’
brief (page 12) that appellants understood the rejection of claims 32 and 38
to be based on De Toledo in view of Miyano. The examiner confirmed
appellants’ understanding on this point on page 4 of the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007