Appeal No. 2003-1774
Application No. 09/797,038
(b) Claims 1-7 over Haggquist in view of Mori, Niimi,
Williams and Cottman;
(c) Claims 1-7 over Kemmesat in view of Haggquist,
Mori, Niimi, Cottman and Williams;
(d) Claims 8 and over Kemmesat in view of Haggquist,
Mori, Niimi, Williams, Cottman, Kierstein, Itami and
Mitsumori.
Also, claims 1, 2 and 5 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over the claims of the related application, US
Patent No. 6,544,702.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the appealed claims are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Inasmuch as we totally concur with the rationale underlying the
examiner’s rejections, as well as the examiner’s cogent response
to the arguments presented by appellants, we will adopt the
examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of
record. We add the following for emphasis only.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007