Appeal No. 98-1204
Application No. 08/609,551
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nickerson.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nickerson in view of Palmer.
Claims 5, 8-11 and 13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nickerson in view of Lloyd.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nickerson in view of Lloyd and Palmer.
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 4 (the final
rejection).
The appellants’ arguments are set forth in the Brief.
OPINION
The Double Patenting Rejection
No terminal disclaimer has been filed, and no arguments
have been made disputing the examiner’s position with regard
to this rejection. We therefore shall sustain it.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007