Appeal 2007-0157
Application 10/984,584
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 6, 9,
16-19 of Song. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are
not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-30 of Song meet all
the limitations of claims 1-30 of the instant application.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Hodges.
Claims 15, 24-28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Hsu and further in view of Hodges.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jul. 07, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Apr. 20, 2006)
and Reply Brief (filed Sep. 11, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013