Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
patenting over claims 1-19 of Lemelson '668 in view of
Lemelson '563.
Appellant's arguments in regard to this rejection are17
substantially the same as those presented by Appellant for the
rejection of claims 21-37 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-22
of Lemelson '101 in view of Lemelson '563. These arguments
have been discussed in section "A" above.
Similarly, the Examiner's arguments in regard to this 18
rejection are substantially the same as those presented by the
Examiner for the rejection of claims 21-37 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-22 of Lemelson '101 in view of
Lemelson '563. These arguments have been discussed in section
"A" above.
As claims 1-19 of the '668 patent do not teach the hand-
held box-like housing which supports the printer as set forth
in all of the independent claims, our reasoning and findings
17 Brief, pages 25-26.
18Answer, pages 25-26.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007