Appeal No. 1998-2606
Application 08/446,415
Claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1 through 18 of U.S. Patent 5,442,338 of which this
application is a continuation-in-part. Claims 1 through 12
and 14 through 21 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Long in
view
of Fales as to claims 1 through 3, 8, 14 through 16 and 18
through 21 as the basic rejection. To this basic combination
of references, the examiner adds Ehle's publication as to
claim 4; Whittlesey as to claims 5 through 7 and 17; Ikeda as
to claim 9 and Watkins as to claims 10 through 12. As
indicated at the bottom page 11 of the answer, the examiner
has only objected to
claim 13 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and has
not rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 through 21
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007