Appeal No. 2000-1869
Application No. 08/922,478
The following rejections are before us in this appeal:3
(1) claims 1, 4, 7 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Harato (Answer, page 3);
(2) the claims on appeal also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lindsay (id.);
(3) the claims on appeal also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ayame (Answer, page 4);
(4) claims 1, 4, 7 and 9-12 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-9, 25-27, 29-52 and 56-64 of copending application
S.N. 08/606,679 (Answer, page 4);4 and
(5) the claims on appeal also stand provisionally rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1, 4-13 and 18 of copending application
S.N. 08/730,217 (Answer, page 5).5
3 The final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs, was withdrawn in view of appellants’ amendment dated Jan. 27,
1999, Paper No. 35, as noted in the Advisory Action dated Feb. 4, 1999, Paper
No. 36.
4 This was a provisional rejection since S.N. 08/606,679 was not allowed
as of the date of the Answer (Answer, page 4). We note that this application
has now matured into U.S. Patent No. 5,935,550, issued on Aug. 10, 1999, with
37 claims. In view of our decision infra and our consideration of the
patented claims, no remand is necessary for the examiner to reconsider this
rejection in view of the patented claims.
5 This application is also the subject of an appeal (see Appeal No.
2000-1868 and the Brief, pages 1-2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007