Appeal No. 2003-1199 Page 4
Application No. 09/125,329
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1 through 10, 14, and 20 of Meier '680 in view of the combined disclosures of
Muenzel (1966) and Muenzel (1970). Finally, claims 1 through 9, 13, 14, 16 through
21, 26, 28, 30, and 31 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 through 13, 17, and 21 through 23
of Application No. 09/599,688 in view of the combined disclosures of Muenzel (1966)
and Muenzel (1970).
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including Figures 1 and 2, and all of the
claims on appeal; (2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 14) and the Reply Brief
(Paper No. 17); (3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16); (4) the above-cited prior art
references; and (5) "Document 1" and "Document 2, " i.e., the exhibits attached to
Paper No. 10 submitted after Final Rejection.1
1 The examiner's treatment of these exhibits is somewhat ambiguous and not
entirely satisfactory. In the Advisory Action mailed January 26, 2001 (Paper No. 11),
the examiner does not directly address Document 1 or Document 2 attached to Paper
No. 10. In the answer, the examiner states that applicants "failed to show why they [the
exhibits] had not been earlier presented" (Paper No. 16, page 5, last line). This
suggests that the exhibits were not presented in a timely manner, and therefore not
admitted in the administrative record. Nonetheless the examiner assumes that the
exhibits are proper. Thus,
Assuming arguendo that they are indeed proper exhibits, document
1 . . . is in German and not in english [sic]. The exhibit has not been
considered. Document 2 fails to establish any superior unexpected
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007