Appeal No. 1998-0460 Page 4
Application No. 08/480,765
(filing date Mar. 28,
1994).
Claims 12-16, 18, 34-63, and 68-70 stand rejected “under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cheung ....” (Final
Rejection at 3.) Claims 17 and 19-33 stand rejected under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting “as being
unpatentable over claim [sic] of U.S. Patent No. 5,440,632.”
(Id. at 4.) Rather than repeat the arguments of the
appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the
brief and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellants and examiner. After
considering the totality of the record, we are persuaded that
the examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-16, 18, 34-63, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007