Appeal No. 2003-0006
Application No. 09/099,546
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Ness 5,767,788 Jun. 16, 1998
Goodwin, III et al. (Goodwin) 5,818,346 Oct. 06, 1998
(filed Feb. 16, 1996)
Claims 1-15 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ness in view of Goodwin. Claims 1-15 stand
further finally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,818,346 (Goodwin) in view of Ness.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 14) and Answer
(Paper No. 17) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of
the rejections, and the evidence relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
1 As indicated at page 7 of the Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn the
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-9 and 15.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007