Appeal 2007-0616
Application 10/733,689
situation since Ruegg and Pravnik do not foreclose one of ordinary skill in
the art from employing either approach.
Moreover, providing an additional purge gas flow would have been
well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art since the need for
additional purge gas flows is dependent on the contaminants remaining in
the conduit during or after the first flow of a purge gas.
Accordingly, for the factual findings set forth above and in the
Answer, we concur with the Examiner that Ruegg alone, or in combination
with Pravnik, would have rendered the subject matter recited in claims 20
through 23 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
ISSUE 5: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
According to the Examiner (Answer 3):
[C]laims 13-16 as [sic, are] provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 5-9 of copending application
10/718855.
The Examiner has determined that “[a]lthough the conflicting claims are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other…” (See the
Examiner’s final Office action dated August 16, 2005, page 6). The
Appellants have not challenged this determination. (See Br. and Reply Br.
in their entirety). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s
decision provisionally rejecting claims 13 through 16 under the judicially-
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013