Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 7
Application No. 08/138,555
We are further persuaded that he erred in rejecting claims 73, 74, 77, and 78 as
obvious over Ulch in view of Tolson; in rejecting claim 75 as obvious over Mauch '393
or Ulch in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296; and in rejecting claims 76 and 79
as obvious over Roland, Mauch '393, or Ulch in view of Tolson further in view of Clark
'780. In addition, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claim 81 as
obvious over Rode in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296; in rejecting claim 82
as obvious over Rode in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296 even further in view
of Bar-on; and in rejecting claim 83 as obvious over Rode in view of Tolson further in
view of Clark '296 further in view of Bar-on further in view of Shelley.
We are also persuaded that he did not err, however, in rejecting claim 80 as
unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Larson in view of Tolson or in rejecting the claim as
obvious over Rode in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part. Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 45, 46, 48, 50-53,
55-60, 68-70, and 73-80
• obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 54
• obviousness rejections of claims 45-60 and 62-83.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007