Appeal No. 2005-1119
Application No. 10/074,665
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Nesbitt 4,431,193 Feb. 14, 1984
Sullivan 5,098,105 Mar. 24, 1992
Sullivan et al. (Sullivan ‘894) 6,213,894 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Yabuki 6,359,066 B1 Mar. 19, 2002
(filed Mar. 28, 1997)
Claims 46-50, 52 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nesbitt (Answer, page 3). Claim 51
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nesbitt in view of Sullivan (Answer, page 4). Claims 46-53 stand
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 1-42 of Sullivan ‘894 (Answer,
page 4).2 We affirm all of the rejections on appeal essentially
for the reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth
below.
OPINION
A. The Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants do not contest or dispute this rejection but
merely state that a terminal disclaimer will be filed once the
2
2We have considered the decision in Appeal No. 2004-1184,
Paper No. 20, in Application No. 10/074,849 (see the Brief, page
2, ķII).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007