Appeal No. 2001-0550
Application No. 09/030,792
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Spina.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spina in view of Matsunaga.
Claims 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Spina in view of Dieras.
Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Masterson “in view of applicant’s [sic,
applicants’] disclosure” (answer, page 8).1
Claims 1, 2 and 9-14 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-6 of US Patent 5,616,120.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-14 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US Patent 6,074,358.2
1Based on the totality of the record before us, it is clear
that the examiner intends this rejection to be based on the
admitted prior art as set forth in the “Background” section of
appellants’ specification, and in particular on the prior art as
exemplified by the patents discussed on page 2 of the
specification.
2In the final rejection, this ground of rejection was
characterized as being “provisional” because it was based on then
pending application 08/823,713. Subsequently, said application
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007