Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
2 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
3 unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, Smrcka, and O’Rear or
4 Gatto.
5 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
6 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
7 being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, Garr, and O’Rear or
8 Gatto.
9 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
10 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 11, 12, 15-18, and
11 21-23 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
12 patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 17, 18, and 24-30 of
13 copending Application 10/779,422.
14 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
15 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3 and 10-14 under the
16 judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
17 unpatentable over claims 20, 22-24, and 26-30 of copending Application
18 10/699,529.
19 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
20 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3, 10-18, 22, and 23
21 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
22 being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 13-17, 20, 22, 34-37, 39-42, 44, and 45
23 of copending Application 10/699,507.
24 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
25 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 3, 15, 17, and 22 under
26 the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
25
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013