Appeal No. 96-1795
Application No. 08/262,745
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Eichenauer I or II
(Answer, page 3). The same claims also stand rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-7 of Eichenauer I or claims 1-8 of
Eichenauer II (Answer, page 5). Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 12 and
14 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over Lausberg in
view of Eichenauer I or II (Answer, page 4). The same claims
also stand rejected for obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1-7 and claims 1-8 of Eichenauer I
and II, respectively, in view of Lausberg (Answer, page 5).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10 and 12-16 stand rejected under § 103 as
unpatentable over Kodama in view of Eichenauer I or II
(Answer, page 4). The same claims also stand rejected for
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims
1-7 and claims 1-8 of Eichenauer I and II, respectively, in
view of Kodama (Answer, page 5). Claims 1, 6-9 and 12 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Cincera (Answer, page 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007