Appeal No. 2001-1660
Application No. 09/146,478
REJECTION
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows1:
1) Claims 1 through 6, 11, 12, 16 through 19, 22, 23 and 29 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
as unpatentable over Mikeska in view of Prabhu or in view of Fukuta and Prabhu; and
2) Claims 7 through 12, 19 through 23 and 29 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
“unpatentable over the references as applied above, and further in view of Enloe...”
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior art, including all of the
evidence and arguments advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s Section 103 rejections
are well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth in the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis and
completeness.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6, 11, 12, 16 through 19, 22, 23
and 29 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Mikeska in view of Prabhu or in
1 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner is advised to determine whether claims
1 through 6 of U.S. Patent 5,876,536 issued to Kumar et al. on March 2, 1999, affect the
patentability of the claimed subject matter under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007