Ex Parte Wang et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2003-1509                                                        
          Application 09/853,575                                                      

          2001) ("any rejection not repeated and not discussed in the                 
          answer may be taken by the Board as having been withdrawn").                
          Nevertheless, we consider the rejection for completeness.                   
               Claims 1-5, 19, 20, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crossland and Appeldorn '643.           
               We refer to the rejection (Paper No. 9) (pages referred to             
          as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15) (pages                  
          referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's                    
          rejection, and to the second appeal brief (Paper No. 14) (pages             
          referred to as "Br__") for a statement of appellants' arguments             
          thereagainst.2                                                              
                                       OPINION                                        
          Double patenting                                                            
               The examiner held claims 1-5, 19, 20, and 43 to be obvious             
          over claims 1-40, in particular, claims 1, 14, 20, 21, 34, 36,              
          and 37 of appellants' U.S. Patent 6,307,987 ('987 patent) because           
          those claims contain all of the limitations of the present claims           
          (FR3).  Appellants state that this issue will be best addressed             
          after all other patentability issues have been resolved so that             
          the claims are in their final form for comparison against the               


          2  Although appellants' first appeal brief (Paper No. 12),                  
          ostensibly addressed the rejection of Crossland and                         
          Appeldorn '643, the examiner found the arguments to be directed             
          to Appeldorn et al. (Appeldorn '876), U.S. Patent 5,432,876,                
          issued July 11, 1995, and required a new brief (Paper No. 13).              
                                        - 3 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007