Appeal No. 1999-2381
Application No. 08/586,434
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Wilcox
and Tsao.
The respective positions of the examiner and the
appellants with regard to the propriety of these rejections
are set forth in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 18) and the
appellants’ brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 17 and 19,
respectively).
Grouping of Claims
At page 7 of the brief, appellants provide the following
grouping of claims,
(1) dependent claims 2-5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 23-35
will rise and fall with independent claim 1,
(2) dependent claims 38, 40 and 46-48 will rise and fall
with independent claim 36,
(3) dependent claims 11, 13 and 22 will rise and fall with
dependent claim 10, and
(4) dependent claims 39 and 45 will rise and fall with
dependent claim 37.
The Rejection under Obviousness-type Double Patenting
Claims 1-15, 20-28, 36-39, 43 and 45
We will not sustain this rejection.
At page 8 of the brief, appellants argue that the
5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007