Appeal No. 2003-1365
Application No. 09/376,659
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Gardner et al. (Gardner ‘518) 5,656,518 Aug. 12, 1997
Komori et al. (Komori) 5,656,522 Aug. 12, 1997
Gardner et al. (Gardner ‘531) 5,672,531 Sep. 30, 1997
Gardner et al. (Gardner ‘298) 5,789,298 Aug. 4, 1998
Kokubu 6,200,858 Mar. 13, 2001
(filed Aug. 3, 1999)
Pham et al. (Pham) 6,248,627 Jun. 19, 2001
(filed Aug. 18, 1999)
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardner ‘298 in view of Kokubu.
Claims 1-5, and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Komori in view of Gardner
‘298 and Kokubu.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Komori in view of Gardner
‘298, Kokubu and Gardner ‘518.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Komori in view of Gardner ‘298, Kokubu
and Gardner ‘531.
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 21 and 22 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No.
6,248,627 (Pham) in view of Kokubu.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007