Appeal Number: 2006-3321
Application Number: 09/843,381
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1-18 rejected under the judicially recognized doctrine of obviousness type
double patenting for claiming an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed in
another U.S. Patent.
The examiner rejected the claims under obviousness double patenting because
“Seo discloses a customization controller 5, the system in the foregoing listed
patents could include such a controller for effecting customization of product.”
(Final Rejection 2).
The appellants respond first by admitting that, as to the patents whose claims
are asserted to be the source of the obviousness type double patenting, “[b]oth
cited U.S. Patents were filed on the same day as the present application and
therefore only a one-way determination is needed.” (Br. 5).
Claim 1 of the ‘631 patent is:
1. A device for mixing of one or more concentrates and/or diluents at
an interface between a container and a filling head of a vending
machine as the container is filled using said filling head,
comprising the combination of:
(i) a filling head component, comprising one or more concentrate
and/or diluent inlet tubes, said inlet tubes being in fluid
communication with a central chamber, said chamber comprising
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013