Appeal 2007-3396
Application 1 11008,592
Conclusion
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered the
subject matter of claim 1 to have been obvious based on the teachings of the
Horn patent alone. The Skowronski and Eisen patents, while not necessary,
are consistent with a conclusion of obviousness. Since the other claims
stand or fall with claim 1, the obviousness rejection for claims 1-7 is
AFFIRMED.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
The obviousness-type double-patenting rejection adds nothing to this
examination. On the facts of this record, where .the availability of the Eisen
patent as prior art is not an issue, the rejection appears to be just a more
complicated repetition of the obviousi~ess rejection. It is difficult to imagine
a circumstance on this record where we could affirm this rejection but not
the obviousness rejection.
Since we have affirmed the obviousness rejection, this rejection is
DISMISSED as moot without prejudice to being reasserted in light of new
facts or claims.
AFFIRMED
N. Denise Brown
BAYER MATERIALSCIENCE LLC
100 BAYER ROAD
PITTSBURGH, PA 15205-9741
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: September 9, 2013