Appeal No. 2002-2024
Application No. 09/197,404
Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 13, 16 through 18 and 20
through 22 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Daugherety '819 in view of Narkon.
Claims 1, 3, 6 through 13, 17, 18 and 20 through 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Daugherty '082 in view of Narkon.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Daugherty '082 in view Narkon as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCloskey.1
1 It appears to us that the above-noted rejections based on
Daugherety '819 and Daugherty '082 are merely cumulative and
superfluous since the disclosures of those two patents appear to
add nothing of significance that is not already disclosed in
Wallace '679. The examiner's statement of the differences
between the applied prior art references and the claimed subject
matter is essentially identical in each of the rejections based
on Wallace '679, Daugherety '819 and Daugherty '082, as is the
examiner's statement regarding the teachings of Narkon and each
of the statements supporting the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness. It would seem the examiner would be well served to
review MPEP § 706.02, wherein it is noted that cumulative
rejections like those above should be avoided.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007