Appeal No. 1999-0602
Application 08/469,393
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and reply brief for appellant’s positions and to the final rejection and
answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final rejection and answer, we
sustain the rejection of each of the claims on appeal for each of the separately enumerated
rejections. We embellish upon them here.
Turning first to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-3, 6
and 8-14, we sustain this rejection. At page 2 of the final rejection, the examiner takes the
position that claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 of this application are not patentably distinct over
respective claims 1-11 and 12-14 of appellant’s earlier patent because claims 1-11 of the
patent cumulatively include the overall combination of elements recited in pending claims
1-3, 6 and 8-11 here; the examiner further notes that claims 12-14 of the patent are
comparable to pending claims 12-14 in this application. The examiner considers that it
would have been an obvious routine design undertaking from an artisan’s perspective
concerning the particular bandwidth recited in the claims, the maximum to minimum
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007