Appeal No. 2003-1169
Application 09/879,888
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Li et al. (Li ‘187) 5,801,187 Sep. 1, 1998
Li et al. (Li ‘972) 6,200,972B1 Mar. 13, 2001
Li et al. (Li ‘544) 6,218,544B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Claims 5, 6, and 8 of related Application Serial Number
09/784,174 (Appeal No. 2003-1102)
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Li ‘187, Li ‘972, or Li ‘544.
Claims 17 through 32 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 5, 6, and 8 of related
Application Serial Number 09/784,174 (Appeal No. 2003-1102).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ Brief and the
examiner’s Answer. This review has led us to conclude that the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection is well-founded. However, we cannot
reach the merits of the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection at this time and therefore remand this application to
the examiner in connection with this rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007