Appeal No. 1999-2119
Application No. 08/815,410
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
As reflected on page 4 of the brief, the appealed claims
have been grouped in accordance with their groupings in the
rejections before us, although the section 103 rejection of
claims 8-10 and the section 103 rejection of claims 9 and 10 have
not been separately argued with any reasonable specificity.
Thus, in assessing the merits of these rejections, we need focus
only on claim 6 which is the sole independent claim on appeal.
Moreover, as indicated on pages 1 and 2 of the brief, the
above identified application is related to co-pending application
Serial No. 08/192,903 which is also on appeal (Appeal No. 97-
0363). We presume familiarity with our decision on appeal of the
related application. Toward that end, a copy of the
aforementioned decision is attached hereto.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the
examiner’s section 103 rejections as well as her obviousness-type
double patenting rejection based on Watanabe ‘787. However, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007