Appeal No. 2005-1422 Page 21
Application No. 09/997,522
SUMMARY
We affirm:
The rejection of claims 4, 5, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the
same invention as claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,597;
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 57 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim
1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,869,633.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 57 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,597.
The rejection of claim 6 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,686,597.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,686,597.
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 5 of
U.S. Patent No. 5,686,597.
The rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the specification fails to provide an adequate written
description of the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007