Appeal No. 2002-0218
Application No. 09/332,415
disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer, Dicks and Bhatta. As
the examiner does not rely on Bhatta to remedy the above
deficiency indicated supra, we reverse this rejection as well.
CONCLUSION
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 12-18, 20,
and 22 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of
copending Application Serial No. 09/321,390 in view of Dicks is
affirmed.
The provisional rejection of Claims 19 and 23 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application
Serial No. 09/321,390 in view of Dicks and Clawson is affirmed.
The rejection of Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya
and Setzer is affirmed.
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer, and Dicks is reversed.
The rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya,
Setzer, Dicks, and Sheller is reversed.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007