Appeal No. 2005-0242
Application No. 09/224,980
On page 3 of the brief, appellants state that the claims
stand together. We therefore select claim 15 as representative
of the rejected subject matter in this appeal. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatantability:
Gretzinger et al. (Gretzinger) 4,469,739 Sep. 04, 1984
Waldrop et al. (Waldrop) 5,856,249 Jan. 5, 1999
McLarty, III. 5,855,991 Jan. 5, 1999
Stumpf et al. (Stumpf) 6,035,901 Mar. 14, 2000
Claims 15-21 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-8 of Waldrop.
Claims 15-21 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over the claims of McLarty, III. in view of
Gretzinger.1
Claims 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Gretzinger in view of Stumpf.
Claims 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Stumpf in view of Gretzinger.
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief, the answer,
and the evidence of record. This review has led us to conclude
that the examiner’s rejections are well-founded.
1 Each of the above-mentioned obviousness-type double patenting
rejections is sustained in view of appellants’ indication that a
terminal disclaimer will be filed to overcome these rejections. See
page 3 of the Answer. Upon return of this application to the
jurisdiction of the examiner, we call upon the examiner and appellants
to handle this issue accordingly.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007