Appeal No. 96-2179 Page 4 Application 07/613,466 B. The rejections 5. The examiner rejects claims 1-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite and as lacking an enabling description. 6. The examiner relies on the following references in making the remaining rejections: Wittkampf et al. (Wittkampf) 4,305,396 15 Dec. 1981 Mumford et al. (Mumford) 4,432,360 21 Feb. 1984 Nappholz et al. (Nappholz) 4,702,253 27 Oct. 1987 Callaghan ('900) 4,766,900 30 Aug. 1988 filed 19 Mar. 1986 Callaghan et al. ('497) 4,878,497 7 Nov. 1989 7. Claims 1-37 and claims 38-61 stand rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting in view of claims 19-29 and claims 1-18, respectively, of the Callaghan '900 patent. 8. Claims 1-37 also stand rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting in view of claims 1-17 of the Callaghan et al. '497 patent and Nappholz. 9. The examiner rejected claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wittkampf. 10. The examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 25-27, 29, 34, 38-41, and 49-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Nappholz. 11. The following claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable in view of the indicated references:Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007