Appeal No. 1998-1319
Application No. 08/466,188
Claims 9, 10, 15, and 18 through 44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Arai
and Suzuki.
Claims 9, 10, 15, and 18 through 44 stand rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over the prior invention as
set forth in claims 1 through 20 of Mano.1
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 31,
mailed April 8, 1997), the First Supplemental Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 34, mailed September 22, 1997) and the
Second Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 36, mailed
December 8, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
30, filed December 23, 1996), Reply Brief (Paper No. 32, filed
June 9, 1997), and Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 35,
filed November 24, 1997) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Since the rejection of claims 18 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was1
not repeated in the Answer, but claims 18 through 27 were included in the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection in the Answer, we assume that the
examiner has dropped the former rejection and substituted in its place the
latter.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007