Appeal No. 1997-0186
Application No. 08/314,568
(2) Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.1
(3) Claims 1-22 are rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,244,853 to
Wang in view of Johnstone.
(4) Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over EP '524.
Grouping of claims
According to appellants, for purposes of this appeal, the
claims are grouped as follows (Brief, p. 3):
(1) with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-22 stand or fall
together;
(2) with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, claims 3 and 14 stand or fall together;
(3) with respect to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, claims 1-22 stand or fall together; and
(4) with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
claims 1-22 stand or fall together.
1Claims 7, 10, 11, 18, 21 and 22 were also finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. However, that rejection was withdrawn by the
examiner. See Paper No. 21, p. 2 and Paper No. 23, p. 2.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007