Appeal No. 2000-1243
Application 08/826,112
viz., the failure of those references to disclose the values of
the real and imaginary components of the index of refraction of
antimony sulfide. As a result, we also cannot sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 20-22 and 24-26.
E. The provisional double patenting rejection
Claims 13, 22, and 23 stand provisionally rejected for
obviousness-type double patenting over independent claims 12 and
25 and dependent claim 23 of Kam et al.'s '111 application
considered with Horikago.7 As a result of the above-noted
deficiencies in Horikago, the double patenting rejection of
claims 13, 22, and 23 is reversed.
7 As noted above, claim 23 of the '111 application depends
on claim 12 via claim 22.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007