Appeal No. 2003-1716 Page 10
Application No. 09/946,205
requirement under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 121.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as described by Lukas-Laskey. We also sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Lukas-Laskey. In the
event of further prosecution of the subject matter of this application, we recommend
that the examiner determine whether any claim or claims should be rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over the claims in U.S.
Patent No. 6,403,579.
The examiner's decision is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007