Appeal No. 2004-1356
Application No. 09/785,100
forth in prior Office Action, Paper No. 15.
Claims 28-30 and 32-39 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. [§] 102(b) and/or (e) as being anticipated by
Koefelda et al.(5,465,843). This rejection is set
forth in prior Office Action, Paper No. 15.
Claims 1-51 are rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of [obviousness-type] double patenting
over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,979,654 to
Apps(Apps ‘654). This rejection is set forth in prior
Office Action, Paper No. 15.
Claims 1-51 are rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of [obviousness-type] double patenting
over figures 1-12 [included in the claim] of U.S.
Patent No. D400,012 to Apps (Apps ‘012). This
rejection is set forth in prior Office Action, Paper
No. 15.
The prior Office action referred to by the examiner, however,
does not indicate what features disclosed in Apps ‘461, Apps ‘482
and Koefelda correspond to the claimed features1 and where in
Apps ‘461, Apps ‘482 and Koefelda can such corresponding features
be found(indicate specific columns and lines of the prior art
involved). The prior Office action also does not indicate what
features claimed in Apps ‘654 or Apps ‘012 correspond to the
features recited in claims 1 and 15 and why the claimed features
1 According to the appellant (Brief, page 6), the claims on appeal are
grouped as follows:
Group 1 - Claims 1, 3-14, 20, 27, 31 and 40-49;
Group 2 - Claim 2;
Group 3 - Claims 15, 17-19, 21-26, 50 and 51;
Group 4 - Claim 16;
Group 5 - Claims 28-30, 32, 34-39; and
Group 6 - Claim 33.
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the examiner may limit his or her
findings relating to the Section 102 rejections to representative claims 1, 2,
15, 16, 28 and 33 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007