Appeal No. 2004-1184
Application No. 10/074,849
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence in support of the rejections on appeal:
Nesbitt 4,431,193 Feb. 14, 1984
Sullivan (Sullivan ‘105) 5,098,105 Mar. 24, 1992
Sullivan et al. (Sullivan ‘894) 6,213,894 Apr. 10, 2001
Yabuki 6,359,066 Mar. 19, 2002
(filed Mar. 28, 1997)
Claims 46-50, 52 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nesbitt (Answer, page 3). Claim 51
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nesbitt in view of Sullivan ‘105(id.). Claims 46-53 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-42 of Sullivan ‘894 (final Office action,
Paper No. 10, page 4, and the Answer, page 7). We affirm all of
the rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants do not contest or dispute this rejection but state
that a terminal disclaimer will be filed once the “other issues”
have been resolved (Brief, page 3). Accordingly, we summarily
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007