Appeal No. 1997-3729 4
Application No. 08/362,107
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 1, 2, 6 through 13 and 17 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Lok, Fuji, MacIntyre or Shuto.2
Claims 1, 2, 6 through 13 and 17 through 23 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the
claims of U. S. Patent Nos. 5,726,005 and 5,736,310 in view of Lok, Fuji, MacIntyre or
Shuto. 3 4
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the examiner that the rejections under §103(a) and the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting are well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm these rejections for the reasons set forth by the examiner and our
additional rationale.
As an initial matter, appellants submit that three groups of claims are independently
2Although the examiner includes claims 3 and 14 in the statement of the rejection, we observe that
both claims have been cancelled by the appellants. See Footnote No. 1.
3The rejection of record was entered over the underlying applications, 08/649,391 and
08/651,193, each of which are continuation-in-parts of application Serial No. 08/362,283.
4Although the examiner includes claims 3 and 14 in the statement of the rejection, we observe that
both claims have been cancelled by the appellants. See Footnote No. 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007