Appeal No. 2000-1808
Application No. 07/855,016
THE REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10 and 23 through 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of Wortel;
2) Claims 11 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Buss and Wortel;
3) Claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Buss, Wortel and Drehman;
4) Claims 19 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Buss, Wortel and Ellig; and
5) Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 20 through 30 of U.S. Patent
5,491,119 issued to Verduijn.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and appellants in support of their
as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). To resolve this matter,
the examiner must determine whether the subject application is
entitled to the benefit of the filing date of PCT Application US
90/06307 filed on October 30, 1990 and/or the filing date of
Great Britain Application 8924410.7 (foreign priority
application) filed on October 30, 1989.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007