Appeal No. 1998-1855 17
Application No. 08/459,537
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellants regard as the invention is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 17, and 27 through 52 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hackl taken with Krebs-Yuill is reversed.
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hackl taken with Krebs-Yuill and further in view of Gross is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 through 17 and 27 through 52 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1 through 19 of U. S. Patent No. 5,127,942 (Brierley ‘942) in view of Clough and
Gross is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 through 17 and 27 through 52 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1 through 29 of U. S. Patent No. 5,332,559 (Brierley ‘559) is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 through 17 and 27 through 52 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1 through 37 of U. S. Patent No. 5,246,486 (Brierley ‘486) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007