Appeal No. 2004-1383
Application No. 09/658,389
on imaginary cylinders having the cross-sections depicted on
page 6 of the answer.
For these reasons, we uphold the examiner’s rejection on
this ground.
II. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 4-6, 18, 24-27, & 29-31
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s determination
that there is some motivation or suggestion to combine Cheng and
Roddy. Rather, the appellants contend that “nothing in the
Roddy patent makes up for the deficiencies pointed out above
with respect to the Cheng patent.” (Appeal brief, page 12.) It
is clear, therefore, that the appellants are relying on the same
arguments as they did for appealed claim 1.
As we discussed above, the appellants’ arguments regarding
Cheng have no merit relative to the broad language recited in
appealed claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
III. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 15 and 22
Again, the appellants rely on the same arguments as they
did for appealed claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm for the same
reasons stated above.
IV. Provisional Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting prohibits a party from obtaining an extension of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007