Appeal No. 2005-0966 9
Application No. 09/897,317
ranges by routine experimentation. We also note that one must presume skill on the part
of the artisan, rather than the converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ
771, 774 (Fed. Cir 1985).
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of claims 2 through 5 and 14 of
the present application under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6, 13, 14
and 16 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is
affirmed. In addition, the examiner’s decision to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Stevens is affirmed, as is the decision to reject claims 2 through 5 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007