Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-22
of Lemelson 4,819,101 (hereinafter "Lemelson '101") in view of
Lemelson 3,943,563 (hereinafter "Lemelson '563").
Claims 21, 23-28, 30 and 32-37 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting
over claims 1-19 of Lemelson 4,604,668 (hereinafter "Lemelson
‘668") in view of Lemelson 3,943,563 (hereinafter "Lemelson
'563").
Claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32 and 34-37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Lemelson '563 in view of
Camras and Kimura.
Claims 24, 29 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable Lemelson '563 in view of Camras and
Kimura and Munsey.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief , Reply Brief and the 3 4
3 The Brief was received October 18, 1999.
4The Reply Brief was received April 3, 2000.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007