Appeal No. 2005-2522 Page 3
Application No. 09/841,453
Jin et al. (Jin), EP 0 849 796 A2 Jun. 24, 1998
(published European Patent Application)
In addition, the following U.S. patent is cited by the
examiner in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection:
Rutherford et al. (Rutherford) 6,318,124 Nov. 21, 2001
Claims 2-16, 18-21 and 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Grainger and
Kotelnikov. Claims 22-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the same combination of references in
a separately stated rejection in the answer. Claim 17 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin
in view of Grainger, Kotelnikov and Burns. Claims 2-29 and 31-34
stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-19 of U.S. patent
No. 6,318,124 in view of Grainger and Kotelnikov.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the briefs, appellants have not persuaded us of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007