Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 4
Claims 10, 11 and 14 stand rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 18 and 26 of U.S.
Patent 5,201,010 in view of Tai.
Claims 17-32 stand rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 and 3 of U.S.
Patent 5,592,560.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer1 (Paper No. 35, mailed
April 19, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief2 (Paper No. 25, filed
February 4, 2002) reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed April 29, 2002
and supplemental reply brief3 (Paper No. 37, filed June 26, 2003)
for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37 CFR
1.192(a).
1 Supplemental examiner's answer.
2 Substitute appeal brief.
3 Response to the supplemental examiner's answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007