Appeal No. 2001-2072
Application 08/910,885
II. The obviousness-type double patenting rejections
We sustain these rejections pro forma because appellants
have not argued against these rejections in the brief and reply
brief.
III. Conclusion
We reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Hockett.
We reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hockett in view of Barrington.
We reverse the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hockett in view of Barrington and further
in view of Caserta.
We reverse the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hockett in view of Barrington and further
view of Erdmannsdoerfer.
We sustain each of the obviousness-type double patenting
rejections.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007