Appeal No. 2006-2699
Application No. 09/915,494
in view of Mitsumaki4 and Pampinella,5 claims 81-83 as obvious over Cui in
view of Carter,6 and claim 93 as obvious over Cui in view of Ehrenkranz.7
Claims 76-78, 80-84, and 93 depend from claim 74. We have already
concluded that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Cui
anticipates claim 74. In addition, the Examiner has not adequately shown
that claim 74 would have been obvious over Cui. The Examiner relies on
Nelson, Alley, Mitsumaki, Pampinella, Carter, and Ehrenkranz for
limitations recited in dependent claims, and has not pointed to any disclosure
in these references that would make up for the deficiencies discussed above.
Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that
claims 76-78, 80-84, and 93 would have been obvious. We therefore reverse
the obviousness rejections of these claims.
4. DOUBLE-PATENTING
The Examiner has provisionally rejected claims 74-102 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1-62 of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/211,199. Appellant does not
traverse this rejection; therefore, we affirm it.
4 Mitsumaki, U.S. Patent No. 4,680,270, issued July 14, 1987.
5 Pampinella, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0023482 A1, published
February 28, 2002.
6 Carter, U.S. Patent No. 4,909,933, issued March 20, 1990.
7 Ehrenkranz, U.S. Patent No. 4,769,215, issued September 6, 1988.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013