Appeal No. 2000-1941
Application 08/567,128
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 10, 16, 19, 22 and 25 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-9
of the Kato patent “since the claims, if allowed, would
improperly extend the ‘right to exclude’ already granted in the
patent.”
2. Claims 2, 9, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Nelson taken
alone.
3. Claim 9 stands additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Ertel taken
alone.
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Concelman taken alone.
5. Claims 11, 14, 17, 20, 22 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Ertel
in view of Chigodo.
6. Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Nelson in view of Chigodo.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007