Appeal No. 2002-0266 Page 3
Application No. 09/409,672
Claims 35, 38-46 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koreska in view of applicant’s admission.
Claims 25-34, 52 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over EP, JP, WO and applicant’s admission.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Koreska in view of applicant’s admission, EP, JP and WO.3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 17) and the final rejection (Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 16) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 18) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 112
3A rejection of claims 25-34, 52 and 54 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting, and a provisional rejection of claims 35-46, 48, 53 and 55 under the same doctrine,
were overcome (see Papers 12 and 13).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007