Appeal No. 1998-1993
Application 08/320,729
(UK Patent Application)
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 44-51 and 53 stand rejected as unpatentable
under the judicially established doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over the claims of Mano.
2. Claim 53 stands rejected as unpatentable under the
judicially established doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over the claims of Mano considered further with
Holmberg.
3. Claims 44-49 and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Morozumi
considered with Togashi and Asars.
4. Claims 50 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Morozumi
considered with Togashi and Asars, and considered further with
Holmberg.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007