Appeal No. 1999-2548
Application No. 08/648,236
and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Suggitt in view of Bertus, Readal and
Japanese ‘406, and claims 11 and 53 are correspondingly
rejected over these references and further in view of Corneil.
All of the claims on appeal also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Corneil in view of
Suggitt, Cimbalo, Bertus, Readal and Japanese ‘406.
Finally, all appealed claims are provisionally rejected
under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
being unpatentable over the claims of copending application
Serial No. 08/648,520 in view of Readal, McKay ‘858 or McKay
‘458.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above
noted rejections.
OPINION
We will sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection of
claims 35 through 39 and 41 through 45 which relies upon
Suggitt as a primary reference as well as the provisional
rejection of all appealed claims based upon obviousness-type
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007