Appeal No. 2004-0912
Application No. 09/942,061
not have been the claimed structure. Unless the Kilness and Tuttle disclosures would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
that the first receptacle contained a second receptacle, the subject matter of claim 21 is
not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 on this record. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 835,
15 USPQ2d 1566, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 21, 23, 41 and 57 to 59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kilness and Tuttle; claims 22, 25 and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kilness, Tuttle and Chow; and
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kilness, Tuttle and Arnold
are reversed.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting
Claims 21 to 25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59 are rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4,
27, 34-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,992. We affirm.
The Appellant does not dispute that the appealed claims are patentably indistinct
from the claims 3, 4, 27, 34-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,992. Rather, the Appellant’s
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007