Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 3
Goldman et al. (Goldman) Re. 30, 580 Apr. 14, 1981
Creekmore 4,109,238 Aug. 22, 1978
Tai 4,908,761 Mar. 13, 1990
Off et al. (Off) 4,910,672 Mar. 20, 1990
Bigari 5,010,485 Apr. 23, 1991
Deaton et al. (Deaton ‘010) 5,201,010 Apr. 6, 1993
Deaton et al. (Deaton ‘196) 5,305,196 Apr. 19, 1994
Deaton et al. (Deaton ‘560) 5,592,560 Jan. 7, 1997
Claims 33-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Creekmore.
Claims 33-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Goldman.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Creekmore in view of Off.
Claims 10, 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Creekmore in view of Off and Tai.
Claims 17-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Creekmore in view of Off, Tai and Bigari.
Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 stand rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim 23 of U.S. Patent 5,305,196.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007