Appeal No. 2005-1839
Application No. 09/471,101
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 through
31 and 33 through 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cheng or Pulizzi in view of the EEM96
catalog and Lord.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection and the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 3, 5 through 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 through 31 and
33 through 37.
Turning first to the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection, we find that the appellant has not responded
to the rejection. Thus, the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection is sustained pro forma.
Turning to the obviousness rejection, we find that claim
1 would have been obvious to the skilled artisan based upon the
teachings of either Pulizzi or Lord considered alone, that claim
13 would have been obvious to the skilled artisan based upon the
teachings of either Cheng, Pulizzi or Lord considered alone, and
that claim 22 would have been obvious to the skilled artisan
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007