Appeal No. 2005-2234
Application No. 10/135,005
incorrectly does not consider this aspect of the claimed
invention in formulating his obviousness conclusion.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 21, 31, 38, and 41 as being obvious
over Kaga. However, we remand this application to the examiner
for proper claim interpretation as discussed above, followed by
a re-evaluation of the applied art with respect to the proper
interpretation of the claims.
III. The Other Rejections
Because the other prior art rejections involve the
reference of Kaga (among other references), and because the
claims involved in these rejections depend upon the independent
claims that involve similar language as discussed above, with
respect to claim 21, these rejections are also reversed, but the
application is remanded for further evaluation of the applied
prior art with respect to a proper interpretation of the claim
language, as discussed above.
IV. Conclusion
The rejection of claims 21 through 40 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007