Appeal No. 2004-0963
Application No. 09/384,088
All claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness as to claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, 20-26 and 28-32,
the examiner relies upon Tateno in view of Halstead. In a second stated
rejection, the examiner further relies upon Houchin as to claims 3, 11, 19
and 27. Lastly, the examiner considers claims 37 and 40-43 obvious in
light of the combined teachings and showings of Tateno, Halstead, and
Marshall. Seven additional rejections of claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 have been
set forth at pages 4-16 of the final rejection, Paper No. 26, mailed on
March 31, 2003, where the examiner provisionally rejects these claims
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over various copending applications.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been filed) for the
appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants in the brief, we
reverse each of the separately stated rejections of all the claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On the other hand, as the examiner notes at page
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007