Ex parte HARDEE - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-1657                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/674,282                                                  


          Claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 stand provisionally rejected                   
          under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as                  
          unpatentable over claims 13-46 of the '328 Application and                  
          over claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application.  Claims                
          5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
           103 as obvious over Young in view of Toshiba.  Rather than                
          repeat the arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we               
          refer the reader to the briefs and answer for the respective                
          details thereof.                                                            


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered                 
          the  subject matter on appeal and the rejection and evidence                
          advanced by the examiner.  Furthermore, we duly considered the              
          arguments of the appellant and examiner.  After considering                 
          the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner              
          erred in rejecting claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39.  Accordingly,              
          we reverse.  Our opinion addresses the following rejections:                
               •    obviousness-type double patenting                                 
               •    obviousness.                                                      










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007