Appeal No. 2004-1383
Application No. 09/658,389
The appellants argue that Cheng does not disclose the
offset fastener receiving passageway limitation of the appealed
claims. This argument is incorrect, because Cheng does disclose
each and every limitation of appealed claim 1, as we discussed
above.
Accordingly, we affirm this rejection as well.
Summary
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejections under: (i)
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claims 1 through 3, 10, 12, 13,
17, 20, and 21 as anticipated by Cheng; (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of appealed claims 4 through 6, 18, 24 through 27, and 29
through 31 as unpatentable over Cheng in view of Roddy; (iii) 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims 15 and 22 as unpatentable
over Cheng in view of Lai; and (iv) the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting of appealed claims
1 through 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20 through 22 as
unpatentable over claims 1 through 27 of copending application
09/658,509 in view of Cheng.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007