Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
McKechnie et al. (McKechnie) 4,864,390
Sept. 5, 1989
Stupp et al. (Stupp) 5,305,128 Apr. 19,
1994
Matsueda 63-70832 Mar. 31,
1988
(Japanese patent application)
Claims 17 through 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 8
of Stupp.
Claims 17, 19, 20, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Matsueda.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 30 and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsueda in view of
McKechnie.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we find the examiner’s positions in the answer to be both
reasonable and correct, and none of appellants’ arguments in
the brief have persuaded us of any error in the rejection.
For the sake of brevity, we will not repeat the examiner’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007