Appeal Number: 2006-3321
Application Number: 09/843,381
We also make of record the following reference:
Kondo US 4,815,633 Mar. 28, 1989
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under the judicially recognized doctrine of
obviousness type double patenting for claiming an obvious variation of the subject
matter claimed in another U.S. Patent.
Claims1 1, 2, 3, 6, 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Seo.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seo and
Partyka.
Claims 6-8 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Seo and Whigham.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (mailed Apr. 21, 2004) and the examiner's answer (mailed April 4, 2006)
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed January
9, 2006) and reply brief (filed June 2, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
1 Although claim 8 was included in both the final rejection, p. 4, and the statutory
basis for the rejection in the answer, p. 3, the examiner withdrew the
35 U.S.C. § 102 basis for rejecting claim 8, and retained the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
basis, in the answer, p. 14.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013