Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 23
Application No. 10/145,226
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 15,
27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques '420) in view of
Jacques '342 is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques '420 in view of Jacques '342 and
Capper is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 to 31 under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-22 of Overholt '388 is
reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 to 31 under the judicially
created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-21 of Overholt '054 is reversed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 to 31 under the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting over figures 1-6 of Overholt '392 is reversed; the decision of the
examiner to provisionally reject claims 12 to 31 under the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting over claims 1-19 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 10/163,004
to Overholt et al. is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 16, 17, 26
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed with respect to claims 16
and 17 and affirmed with respect to claims 26 and 27; the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 12 to 18, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated
by Jacques '342 is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 to 31
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007