Appeal No. 2001-2262
Application 09/006,014
Claims 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Takino.
Claims 8, 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Takino taken alone.
Claim 11 stands additionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claim 1 of Ruigrok in view of Takino.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon by the examiner does not support
any of the examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007