Appeal No. 1999-2119
Application No. 08/815,410
Murata et al. (Murata ‘957)(EP) 0 523 957 Jan. 20, 1993
Claims 6-8 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schwalm ‘265, and claims 9 and 10 are
correspondingly rejected over this reference and further in view
of Yamada.
Claims 6-8, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Nguyen-Kim in view of Schwalm ‘037,
and claims 8-10 are correspondingly rejected over these
references and further in view of Yamada.
Claims 6-12 stand rejected “under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 8-10, 16, 17 and 19-22 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,624,787 (US‘787) [Watanabe ‘787] in view of EP ‘426
[Yamada] with either EP 0523957 (EP‘957) [Murata ‘957] or US
5,580,695 (Murata) [Murata ‘695]” (answer, page 12).
Finally, claims 6-8, 11 and 12 stand rejected “under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-7
of U.S. Patent No. 5,691,112 (US‘112) [Watanabe ‘112] since the
claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the ‘right to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007