Appeal No. 2004-1546
Application No. 09/030,989
rejection presented. Appellants have failed to provide specific arguments
identifying the specific portions of MPEP 804 which have not been met by
the Examiner’s rejection.
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we
affirm the rejection of claims 23 and 30 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over
claims 1 to 15 of U.S. Patent 5,813,972; and claims 23 to 38 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1, 6 to 8 of U.S. Patent 5,813,972 in view of Sites.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 16 to 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Dias and Omori together or in
combination with Sites and Schenk is reversed. The rejection of claims 23
and 30 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 to 15 of U.S. Patent 5,813,972; and
of claims 23 to 38 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 to 8 of U.S. Patent
5,813,972 in view of Sites are affirmed.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007