Appeal No. 2002-1908
Application 09/097,013
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 4.
IV. The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1,
2 and 8 through 11
The claims in the Takahashi ‘937 patent pertain to a chip
part aligning apparatus and method involving a swingable plate or
member, an element which is not recited in appealed claims 1, 2
and 8 through 11. Conceding that these appealed claims and the
claims in the Takahashi ‘937 patent are not identical, the
examiner nonetheless contends that “they are not patentably
distinct from each other because the claims only differ in
obvious variations in breadth and scope” (final rejection, page
3). The examiner, however, has failed to proffer any evidence to
substantiate this conclusion.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8 through 11 in
view of the claims in the Takahashi ‘937 patent.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 11
is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007