Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 4
Application No. 08/684,328
over claims 5-7,20-26, and 28-39 of the '282 Application.
Claims 43 and 44 stand provisionally rejected under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application. Claims
45 and 46 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 13-46. 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