Appeal No. 96-0359
Serial No. 08/083,866
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the examiner's provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 over claims 1-6 and 12-14 of copending
application 08/083,864.
OTHER MATTERS
In the event of further prosecution, appellants and the examiner are advised to consider whether
the oath in this continuation-in-part application complies with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.53 and 1.56.
CONCLUSION
In summary, (1) the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bailey is sustained, (2) the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee is sustained, and (3) the provisional rejection of claims 3, 4,
6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 12-14 of copending application
08/083,864 is sustained.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Page 19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007