Appeal No. 2004-0912
Application No. 09/942,061
THE REJECTIONS3
The Examiner rejected entered the following ground of rejections:
Claims 21, 23, 41 and 57 to 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Kilness and Tuttle. (Answer, pp. 3-4).
Claims 22, 25 and 40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Kilness, Tuttle and Chow. (Answer, pp. 4-5).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kilness,
Tuttle and Arnold. (Answer, p. 5).
Claims 21 to 25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59 are rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4,
27, 34-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,992. (Answer, pp. 5-6).
Claims 21 to 25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59 are rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 to
38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,991 in view of Kress. (Answer, p. 6).
3 The Examiner has identified the rejection of claims 21-25 and 40-59 in several of the rejections in the
Answer. However, claims 42-56 have been canceled in an after final amendment that the Examiner has entered.
(Answer, p. 2). In these cases, the rejection will apply to all of the pending claims that remain, i.e., claims 21 to
25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007