Appeal No. 95-1484
Application 08/070,650
Since the examiner needs to consider the conflict in the first
instance, we reverse all the examiner’s rejections of Claims
57, 64-66, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.
Conclusion
1. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 57, 64-66,
and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
2. We affirm the examiner’s rejection of Claims 67 and 68
for obviousness-type double patenting of Claims 1-10 of
U.S. 4,863,565.
3. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 57, 64-66,
and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Ring, Valla, Kusakabe, or
Ramamurti.
4. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 57, 64-66,
and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the separate teaching
of Ring, Valla, Kusakabe, or Ramamurti.
5. We do not consider the merits of the examiner’s
rejections of Claims 49-56, 58-63, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, 35 U.S.C. § 102, or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rather we remand the case for initial interpretation of the
claim language, determination of the scope of the subject
matter claimed, and compliance with the requirements of 35
- 21 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007