Appeal No. 2001-0250 Page 6
Application No. 08/283,074
that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 17, 42-46, 74, 77,
78, 80, and 91 as indefinite; in rejecting claims 1, 7, 10,
12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 39, 67, 89, and 91 as anticipated by
Seybert; and in rejecting claims 11, 22, and 90 as obvious
over Seybert. We are not persuaded that he erred in rejecting
claims 1-4, 6-12, 17, 20-24, 54-57, and 59-64 as claiming the
same invention as that of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-19 of
Fredberg; in rejecting claims 18 and 73 as unpatentable over
claims 16 and 12 of Fredberg; or in rejecting claims 2-4, 6,
17, and 81-83 as obvious over Seybert in
view of Schroeder. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part. Our
opinion addresses the following rejections:
• indefiniteness rejection of claims 17, 42-46, 74,
77, 78, 80, and 91
• double patenting rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 17,
20-24, 54-57, and 59-64 and obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 18 and 73
• anticipation rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 15,
16, 18, 21, 23, 39, 67, 89, and 91 and obviousness
rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 11, 17, 22, 81-83, and
90.
We begin with the indefiniteness rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007