Appeal No. 2003-0604
Application No. 09/307,544
Claims 1, 2, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Sydansk in view of Githens.
Claims 1-4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Merrill and Githens.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-13 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable of House in view of Horner and Githens.
Claims 1-13 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of co-pending Application
No. 09/296,217 in view of Sydansk, or over claims 1-10 of co-
pending Application No. 09/296,216 in view of Sydansk.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Horner et al. (Horner) 3,208,524 Sep. 28, 1965
Githens 4,566,979 Jan. 28, 1986
Sydansk 4,989,673 Feb. 05, 1991
House et al. (House) 5,004,553 Apr. 02, 1991
Merrill 5,377,760 Jan. 03, 1995
Claims 1-10 of Application No. 09/296,217, filed April 22, 1999
Claims 1-10 of Application No. 09/296,216, Filed April 22, 1999
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007