Appeal No. 2003-0574
Application No. 09/568,616
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Murray et al. (Murray) 4,698,247 Oct. 06, 1987
Miller 5,387,451 Feb. 07, 1995
Smith 6,203,924 Mar. 20, 2001
The Examiner has rejected claims 13, 14, 20, 22, 23 and 27 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite; claims 11 to 14, 19 and 21 to 23
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as anticipated by Murray; claims 11, 12, 15-17,
19-21 and 24-26 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miller; and
claims 13, 14, 20, 22, 23 and 27 as unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 to 9 of Smith. (Answer, pp. 4 to 7).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellant concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer and the Brief.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s §§
112, 102 and double patenting rejections are not well founded. We also conclude that the
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007