Appeal No. 2003-0515
Application 09/296,216
Claims 1 through 13 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 10 of co-pending
Application No. 09/296,217 in view of Sydansk.
Claims 1 through 13 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 10 of co-pending
Application No. 09/307,544 in view of Sydansk.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Horner et al. (Horner) 3,208,524 Sep. 28, 1965
Githens 4,566,979 Jan. 28, 1986
Sydansk 4,989,673 Feb. 5, 1991
House et al. (House) 5,004,553 Apr. 2, 1991
Merrill 5,377,760 Jan. 3, 1995
Claims 1-10 of Application No. 09/296,217, filed April 22, 1999
Claims 1-10 of Application No. 09/307,544, filed May 7, 1999
OPINION
On page 1 of the Brief, appellant indicates that the present
case is related to two other applications. We have rendered a
decision on an appeal in one of these applications. This
decision was mailed on July 17, 2003 (S.N. 09/307,544, Appeal No.
2003-0604). The claims of this application are relied upon by
the examiner in one of the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejections in the present case. A copy of this
decision is attached herewith. The claims of the other related
application (S.N. 09/296,217) are also relied upon by the
examiner in one of the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejections in the present case.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007