Appeal No. 96-1795
Application No. 08/262,745
three obviousness-type double patenting rejections are
affirmed for reasons set forth above and in the Answer.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12 and 13 under §
102(e) as anticipated by Eichenauer I or II is reversed. The
rejection of these same claims under § 103 as unpatentable
over Eichenauer I or II is affirmed. The rejection of these
same claims under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-7 of
Eichenauer I or claims 1-8 of Eichenauer II is also affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 12 and 14 under § 103
as unpatentable over Lausberg in view of Eichenauer I or II is
affirmed. The rejection of these same claims under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-7 of Eichenauer I or claims 1-8 of
Eichenauer II, each in view of Lausberg, is also affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10 and 12-16 under § 103 as
unpatentable over Kodama in view of Eichenauer I or II is
affirmed. The rejection of these same claims under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-7 of Eichenauer I or claims 1-8 of
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007