Appeal No. 1998-1226
Application No. 08/420,330
thus fail to remedy the deficiency noted here. Accordingly,
the examiner has not met the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability. Therefore the rejection
of claims 49-54, 56 and 57 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-34
of Friend in view of Geus and Tomoda is reversed.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 49-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tennent in view of Geus and Tomoda is affirmed. The rejection
of claims 34-36, 39, 40 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tennent in view of Geus, Tomoda and Nabeta is reversed. The
rejection of claims 49-54, 56 and 57 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1-34 of Friend in view of Geus and Tomoda is reversed.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007