Appeal No. 2004-0912
Application No. 09/942,061
Claims 21 to 25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59 are provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 to 18 of copending application no. 09/814,430, now U.S. patent
6,453,779, in view of McCann. (Answer, pp. 6-7).
Claims 21 to 25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59 are provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 to 20 of copending application no. 09/923,120, now U.S. patent
6,457,389, in view of McCann and Chen. (Answer, p. 7).
Claims 21 to 25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59 are provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 to 60 of copending application no. 09/854,795 in view of Fosella, Kress,
McCann and Chen. (Answer, p. 8).
Claims 21 to 25, 40, 41 and 57 to 59 are provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 to 20 of copending application no. 09/888,810 in view of McCann and
Chen. (Answer, p. 8).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007