Appeal No. 2003-1685
Application No. 09/444,809
The examiner relies upon the following references of
evidence of unpatentability:
Koput et al. (Koput) 4,013,500 Mar. 22, 1977
Hamisch Jr.(‘392) 4,199,392 Apr. 22, 1980
Kapitanov 4,316,469 Feb. 23, 1982
Holland-Letz 4,419,930 Dec. 13, 1983
Godin 4,432,307 Feb. 21, 1984
Hamisch Jr.(‘389) 4,498,389 Feb. 12, 1985
Huggins 5,044,276 Sept. 3, 1991
Ng 5,283,921 Feb. 8, 1994
Goodwin et al. (Goodwin) 5.486,259 Jan. 23, 1996
Claims 31 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hamisch ‘392 in view of Holland-Letz,
Koput and Ng.
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Hamisch ‘392, Holland-Letz, Koput, Ng, and
Hamisch ‘389, and further in view of Goodwin and Huggins.
Claims, 33, 34, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hamisch ‘392, Holland-Letz,
Koput, Ng, Hamisch ‘389, further in view of Godin and Kapitanov.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hamisch ‘392, Holland-Letz, Koput, Ng, and
Hamisch ‘389, and and further in view of Goodwin and Huggins.
Claims 31-38 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5,988,249 in view of
Hamisch ‘392, Koput, Ng, Goodwin, Huggins, Godin, and Kapitanov.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007