Appeal No. 1998-1664
Application No. 08/323,982
I. Claims 1 through 8, 19 through 21, 23, 28 through
33, 44 through 47, and 51 through 56 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(g) as anticipated by Adams (examiner’s answer, page 3);
II. Claims 1 through 8, 19 through 21, 23, 28 through
33, 44 through 47, 51 through 62, 75 through 77, 81 through
83, 101, and 102 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) as
anticipated by Blystone (id.);
III. Claims 1 through 8, 19 through 21, 23, 28
through 33, 44 through 47, 51 through 62, 75 through 77, 81
through 83, 101, and 102 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1 through 80 of U.S. Patent 5,281,346
(Adams) (id. at page 4); and
IV. Claims 1 through 8, 19 through 21, 23, 28 through
33, 44 through 47, 51 through 62, 75 through 77, 81 through
83, 101, and 102 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 1 through 69 of U.S. Patent 5,356,546 (Blystone)
(id. at pages 4-5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007