Appeal No. 97-0480
Application No. 07/858,818
cells in the same linear direction with suitable force and frequency to provide a predictable and uniform
delivery of carrier particles.
(Brief pages 3-4 and 9-10.)
ISSUES 4
I. Claims 10, 13, 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sanford taken with Klein.
II. Claims 10, 13, 14 and 16 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-16, 19, 21-24,
37-40 and 42 of copending application no. 07/931,882 in view of Sanford “R.”
4The examiner has withdrawn (a) the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims
10, 13-17, 26 and 27 (now claims 10, 13, 14 and 16) over (i) claims 1-20, 22 and 23 of copending Application 07/485,111,
(ii) claims 1-7, 9 and 10 of copending Application 08/701,416, (iii) claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14 and 16-18 of copending
Application 07/670,610, and (iv) claims 1-10 and 19 of copending Application 07/910,470 as set forth in the final
Office action mailed October 05, 1994 (Paper no. 14) in view of the abandonment of the copending applications
(Answer, pages 4-5) and (b) the rejection of claims 10, 13-17, 26 and 27 (now claims 10, 13, 14 and 16) under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as enabled only for delivery to plant cells as set forth in the final Office action mailed October
05, 1994 (Paper no. 14) in view of the cancellation and/or amendment of these claims (Answer, page 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007