Appeal No. 2002-0679 3
Application No. 08/684,351
THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following
references:
Martin 4,513,058 Apr. 23, 1985
Kralik 4,660,831 Apr. 28, 1987
Smith 5,294,112 Mar. 15, 1994
Mitchell et al. (Mitchell) 5,952,065 Sep. 14, 1999
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 16 through 18, 21 and 45 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Martin.
Claims 1 through 21, 23 through 28, 30, 45 and 48 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Martin and Kralik
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 13, 15 through 19, 21, 23 through
26, 28, 30, 45 and 48 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 25 of U. S. Patent No.
5,952,065.1
1Although the examiner restates the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, we consider both
of the rejections together.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007