Appeal No. 1996-2240
Application No. 08/105,482
I. Claims 1 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a
specification which does not provide adequate written descriptive support for the claimed
invention and does not enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed
invention.
II. Claims 1 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
III. Claims 1 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Miyagi, Long
and the admitted state of the prior art.
IV. Claims 1 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Matson 1987
and Seltzer.
V. Claims 1 through 20 under the judicially established doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting (provisional) as unpatentable over claims 1 through 20 of co-
pending application serial no. 08/092,543.
VI. Claims 1, 2, 10, 21 through 23 and 27 under the judicially established doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 through 4 of U.S.
Patent No. 4,863,873.
VII. Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10, 21 through 23 and 27 under the judicially
established doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1,
4 through 8, 10, 12 through 16, 18, 19, 22 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,104,639.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007