Appeal 2007-0770
Application 09/752,330
1
2 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
3 Claims 1 through 48 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
4 obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 45
5 of Mantena. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the
6 Answer.1 Claims 1 through 3, 9 through 11, 13 through 15, 21 through 23, 25
7 through 27, 33 through 35, 37 through 39, and 45 through 47 stand rejected under
8 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lidow. The Examiner’s rejection is
9 set forth on pages 5 through 7 of the Answer.
10 Claims 4 through 8, 16 through 20, 28 through 32, and 40 through 44 stand
11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lidow in view of
12 Multiplatform. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the
13 Answer.
14 Claims 12, 24, 36, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
15 unpatentable over Lidow in view of Official Notice. The Examiner’s rejection is
16 set forth on page 8 of the Answer.
17 Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief
18 (filed June 22, 2006 and November 8, 2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed
19 September 8, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
1 We note that the statement of the rejection identifies this as a provisional
rejection and relies upon the published application 2002/0087477 which matured
into the patent to Mantena. The Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s
response to arguments both refer to the rejection as being non-provisional and
directed to the patent claims. Accordingly, we treat this rejection as a non-
provisional rejection and consider it as applied using the Mantena patent.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013