Appeal No. 2004-0746 Page 3
Application No. 09/163,588
Claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 23, 27 to 32, 35 to 39 and 41 to 55 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-16 of U. S. Patent
No. 5,623,260.
Claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 23, 27 to 32, 35 to 39 and 41 to 55 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-15 of U. S. Patent
No. 5,657,010.
Claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 23, 27 to 32, 35 to 39 and 41 to 55 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-80 of U. S. Patent
No. 5,668,543.
Claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 23, 27 to 32, 35 to 39 and 41 to 55 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,648,770 to Ross in
view of U.S. Patent No. 5,168,451 to Bolger.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 20, mailed July 26, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 23, mailed
March 12, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007