Appeal No. 1998-0460 Page 5
Application No. 08/480,765
68-70. We are not persuaded, however, that he erred in
rejecting claims 17 and
19-33. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part. Our opinion addresses
the following issues seriatim:
• anticipation and obviousness of claims 12-16, 18,
34-63, and 68-70
• obviousness-type double patenting of claims 17 and
19-33.
First, we address the anticipation and obviousness of claims
12-16, 18, 34-63, and 68-70.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007