Appeal No. 2004-1264
Application 09/909,168
views as set forth on page 3 of the reply brief concerning those
claims on appeal which set forth that the radially inner surface
of the posts have a convex profile. Thus, we can not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 18 through 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Ferreira.
To summarize our decision, we have sustained the examiner's
rejection of claims 28 through 30 and 34 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,272,774. However,
we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 18 through
34 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on Ferreira.
In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007