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