Appeal No. 2001-2072
Application 08/910,885
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Caserta 2,460,168 Jan. 25, 1949
Hockett 3,095,290 June 25, 1963
Covington 5,587,066 Dec. 24, 1996
(filed Feb. 8, 1994)
Brown et al. (Brown) 5,685,985 Nov. 11, 1997
(filed Dec. 20, 1995)
Erdmannsdoerfer et al.
(Erdmannsdoerfer) 5,741,421 Apr. 21, 1998
(filed Nov. 21, 1995)
Barrington (UK) 2 134 811 Aug. 22, 1984
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Hockett.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Hockett in view of Barrington.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hockett in view of Barrington and further in
view of Caserta.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hockett in view of Barrington and further view
of Erdmannsdoerfer.
Claim 1 stands rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,685,985.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,685,985 in
view of Barrington.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007