Appeal No. 2003-1192 Page 3
Application No. 09/660,888
The Examiner maintains rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, additionally, maintains
a rejection under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. As
evidence in support of these rejections, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references as well as the claims on appeal in the other application:
Matsunuma et al. (Matsunuma) 5,993,258 Nov. 30, 1999
Futatsugi et al. (Futatsugi) 6,077,120 June 20, 2000
Wu et al. (Wu) 6,086,421 July 11, 2000
Wang 6,095,869 Aug. 1, 2000
All the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 21 stand
rejected as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Futatsugi and further in view of Wang.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Futatsugi in view of Matsunuma
and Wang. Claim 19 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Futatsugi, Matsunuma, and
Wang and further in view of Wu.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are additionally provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of
copending Application No. 09/660,907 in view of Futatsugi.
We reverse with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but affirm with
respect to the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Our reasons follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007