Appeal No. 1999-2518
Application 08/722,213
Panandiker et al. (Panandiker) 5,466,802 Nov. 14, 1995
(filed Nov. 10, 1993)
Willey et al. (Willey) 5,503,639 Apr. 2, 1996
(effective filing date Jun. 24, 1993)
Collier et al. (Collier) 1,000,628 Nov. 30, 1976
(Canadian patent)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 11, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Collier;
claims 1-4, 12, 14-16, 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Collier in view of Panandiker;1 claims 5-7, 9, 10, 23 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Collier in view of
Panandiker and Van Kralingen; claims 8, 13 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Collier in view of Panandiker and Willey;
and claims 17 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Collier in view of Panandiker and De Cupere.2
1
1 The examiner added claim 12 to this rejection in the
answer (page 4) and withdrew it from the rejections under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103 over Collier (answer, page 2). The
appellants note this change in the reply brief (page 1) but do
not challenge it. Thus, the record does not indicate that the
appellants have been prejudiced by the addition of claim 12 to
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Collier in view of
Panandiker. We therefore consider this rejection of claim 12 to
be before us for decision.
2
2 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should
consider making obviousness-type double patenting rejections over
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007