Appeal No. 2001-0252
Application 08/760,652
of certain of the appealed claims, the examiner has
additionally relied upon U.S. Patent No. 5,430,964, issued
July 11, 1995 to Dan Inbar et al.
Claims 21 through 23 and 30 through 32 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,430,964.
Claims 4 through 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Krajian.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Geluk.
Claims 7, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Krajian.
Rather than reiterate the details of these rejections and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007