Appeal No. 1998-2002
Application 08/690,016
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Tanaka et al. 4,075,312 Feb. 21, 1978
Reilly et al. (Reilly) 4,769,225 Sept. 6, 1988
Tamhankar 0 240 270 Oct. 7,
1987
(European Patent Document)
The following rejections are at issue in this appeal:
(1) Claims 33-40 and 42-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
(2) Claims 42-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Reilly in view of Tanaka.
(3) Claims 33-40 and 50-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly in view of Tanaka and
further in view of EP ‘270.
(4) Claims 33-40 and 42-57 are rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,492,682.
The rejections
A. Double patenting rejection
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007