Appeal Number: 2006-2117
Application Number: 10/098,341
supra, Otis does not teach a disc-shaped in tank valve. Therefore, Otis fails to remedy
the shortcomings of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,383,436. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e), claims 10 through 12, 15, 16, and 18 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and
claims 7 through 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 under obviousness-type double patenting is
reversed.
REVERSED
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG/vsh
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007