Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
We note the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 33 in
this rejection.
Claims 7-9, 12, 18, 25, 33 and 47 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Devic.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Devic in view of Gould.
Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Devic in view of Hoseney.
Claims 1-18, 21-39 and 47 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No.
6,497,909.
With regard to the claims under consideration in this
appeal, to the extent that any one claim is specifically and
separately argued regarding patentability, we will consider such
claim. Our consideration of any one particular claim is
discussed under each heading below, corresponding to a respective
rejection. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004);
formerly 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier,
21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief, and reply
brief, the examiner’s answer and the evidence of record. This
review has led us to the following determinations.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007