Appeal No. 2002-0218
Application No. 09/332,415
REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows2:
I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 12-18, 20, and 22 stand provisionally
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through
22 of copending Application Serial No. 09/321,390 in view of
Dicks;
II. Claims 19 and 23 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 22 of copending
Application Serial No. 09/321,390 in view of Dicks and Clawson;
III. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya
and Setzer;
IV. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer and Dicks;
V. Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson,
Narumiya, Setzer, Dicks and Sheller; and
2 The examiner has withdrawn the Section 112 rejection set
forth in the final Office action dated December 27, 2000. See
the Answer, pages 2, 3 and 5.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007