Appeal No. 1996-2009
Application No. 07/982,193
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of
Srivastava.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1 or 9 of Srivastava.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over Lebkowski in
view of Izban.
Claims 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103
as being unpatentable over Lebkowski in view of Izban as
applied to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 18 and further in
view of appellant's admissions.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
being unpatentable over Lebkowski in view of Izban as
applied to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 18 and further in
view of Kim.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
being unpatentable over Lebkowski in view of Izban as
applied to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 18 and further in
view of Lu.
Decision
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections
All the claims on appeal have been rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting. Appellants do not address the merits
of these rejections except to say that they have agreed
to file the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007