5. laims 1-8 stand rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-typeC
double patenting as being unpatentable overclaims 1-22 of Ling in view of May.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by theexaminer
and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed February 23, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed January 4, 2006) and reply brief (filed March
29, 2006) for the appellants’ arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As aconsequence of our review, we make
the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after consideration of the record before
us, the claimed invention would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made in view of the prior art relied upon by the examiner and
in view of the patented claims of the patents cited by the examiner in the obviousness-
type double patenting rejection. It is also our view that the appellants’ original disclosure
provides sufficient written description for the subject matter recited in claim 8.
Rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The appellants appear to argue claims 1-7 as a group. As such, we will direct our
review to claim 1 as a representative claim of the group.
In therejection of independent claim 1, the examiner has determined that Jones
teaches a feminine hygiene disposal package (10) for carrying pads comprisinga
receptacle (12) having an interior (14) in which a plurality of disposable containers (20)
are located.(Examiner’s Answer, p. 4). The examiner relies on Burrow to show that it is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007