Appeal No. 1998-2614
Application No. 08/731,713
2) Claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Shaw, Dyer, Rausch and either
Freedlander, Waugh, Marzocchi or Kremer;
3) Claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Shaw, Dyer, Hansen and either
Freedlander, Waugh, Marzocchi or Kremer;
4) Claims 48 through 50 and 56 through 58 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Shaw,
Dyer, Cooper and either Freedlander, Waugh, Marzocchi or
Kremer; and
5) Claims 34 through 50 and 52 through 58 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 through 32 of U.S.
Patent 5,573,619 issued to Benedict.
Having carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
Freedlander, Waugh, Marzocchi and Kremer extends to claims
“34-40, 42-46, 48-53 and 55-66". As is apparent from page 2
of the final Office action and pages 2 and 4-10 of the Answer,
this rejection only extends to “claims 34-41, 43-47 and 52-
55".
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007