Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
1999
(filed Nov. 09,
1998)
Foo et al. (Foo) 6,036,225 Mar. 14,
2000
(filed Jul. 01, 1998)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by each of Wessels, Dalum and Foo.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
6) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 7) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
In the final rejection (Paper No. 4), the examiner also rejected1
claims 1 through 10 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over the claims in the Wessels patent. Upon reconsideration
(see page 9 in the answer), the examiner has withdrawn this rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007