Appeal No. 1999-0711 Page 3
Application No. 08/876,869
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Stragier et al. (Stragier) 4,219,298 Aug. 26, 1980
Matsumoto 5,035,564 Jul. 30, 1991
Horning et al. (Horning) 5,316,430 May 31, 1994
Ratledge WO 94/05570 Mar. 17, 1994
(published international application)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 48, 49, 52 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Matsumoto in view of Horning.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto
in view of Horning, as applied to claims 48, 49, 52 and 53 above, and further in view of
Ratledge.
Claims 55-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matsumoto in view of Horning, as applied to claims 48, 49, 52 and 53 above, and further in
view of Stragier.
Claims 48, 49, 52, 53 and 55-57 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, 9 and 13-
16 of Application No. 08/963,541.1
1The examiner's inclusion of claim 3 of application No. 08/963,541 in the statement of this rejection on
page 4 of the answer is presumed to have been an inadvertent error, as claim 3 was canceled in Paper No. 17, filed
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007