Appeal No. 2004-1383
Application No. 09/658,389
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
I. claims 1 through 3, 10, 12, 13, 17, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cheng (answer,
page 3; final Office action, pages 5-6);
II. claims 4 through 6, 18, 24 through 27, and 29 through
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cheng
in view of Roddy (answer, page 3; final Office action,
page 7);
III. claims 15 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cheng in view of Lai (answer, page
3; final Office action, pages 7-8); and
IV. provisionally, claims 1 through 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17,
and 20 through 22 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1 through 27 of copending
application 09/658,509 in view of Cheng (answer, page
3; final Office action, pages 3 through 5).
We affirm all four rejections. Because we are in
substantial agreement with the examiner’s factual findings and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007