Appeal No. 1998-1226
Application No. 08/420,330
Claims 49-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tennent in view of Geus and Tomoda (Answer,
page 2). Claims 34-36, 39, 40 and 42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tennent in view of Geus
and Tomoda further in view of Nabeta (Answer, page 4). Claims
49-54, 56 and 57 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 1-34 of Friend in view of Geus and Tomoda (id.). 2
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 49-57 under
section 103 over Tennent in view of Geus and Tomoda but
reverse all other rejections. Accordingly, the examiner’s
decision is
affirmed-in-part for reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Tennent, Geus and Tomoda
On page 7 of the Brief, appellants state that they “are
aware of no reason why the rejected claims do not stand or
2The final rejection of claims 50-52 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was withdrawn by the examiner in
view of appellants’ amendment after the final rejection (see
the Advisory Action dated Jan. 2, 1997, Paper No. 47).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007