Appeal No. 1998-2422
Application 08/488,380
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Keogh et al. (Keogh) 5,008,619 April 16, 1991
Leedy 5,580,687 December 3, 1996
Claims 77-80 and 83-88 stand rejected under the2
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 3-5, 10, and 11 of Leedy.
Claims 77-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as3
being unpatentable over Keogh and common knowledge in the art.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 19) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 22) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the Brief (Paper No. 21) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 23)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst. The Examiner noted entry and
The Examiner's Answer, page 3, rejects claims 77-88.2
However, the Final Rejection (Paper No. 19) only rejects
claims 77-80 and 83-88. Thus, claims 81 and 82 are not
considered to be rejected.
The Examiner's Answer, page 3, rejects claims 77-80.3
This is considered to be an inadvertent error because the
Final Rejection (Paper No. 19) rejects claims 77-88 and the
Examiner does not indicate that the rejection of claims 81-88
is withdrawn.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007