Appeal No. 1999-0736
Application 08/167,581
The references applied by the examiner are:
Arendt et al. (Arendt) 5,204,316 Apr. 20, 1993
(filed Apr. 2, 1990)
Sato et al. (Sato ‘699) 5,288,699 Feb. 22, 1994
(effective filing date Dec. 6, 1990)
Sato et al. (Sato ‘123) 5,610,123 Mar. 11, 1997
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 stand rejected on the
following grounds:
(1) Unpatentable over Arendt in view of Sato ‘699, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a);1
(2) Unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1 to 11 of Sato ‘123.2
On page 2 of their brief, appellants state that for purposes
of the appeal, the claims are considered in one grouping.
Therefore, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7), we select claim 1 and
will decide the appeal based thereon.
1 A third reference, Meyer Pat. No. 5,206,211, was also
applied in this rejection, but the examiner states on page 2 of
the answer that the rejection based on Meyer is no longer
maintained.
2 This rejection is not repeated in the examiner’s answer,
but at the oral hearing counsel for appellants agreed that it
should be considered as having been maintained by the examiner.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007