Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 4
Application No. 10/039,338
(2) Claims 18 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellants regard as the invention;
(3) Claims 18 to 20, 22, 26 to 30 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Jordan;
(4) Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan;
(5) Claims 25 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view
of Zaleski;
(6) Claims 18 to 34 under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims
1 to 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,354,021; and
(7) Claims 18 to 34 under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims
1 to 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,259,129.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed January 31, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed January 14, 2003) and reply brief (filed March 31, 2003)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007