Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Rose et al. (Rose) 6,068,884 May 30, 2000
Grill et al. (Grill) 6,312,793 Nov. 6, 2001
Xu et al. (Xu) 2003/0116421 Jun. 26, 2003
(Patent Application Publication) (filed Dec. 13, 2001)
On page 2 of the Answer, the examiner indicates that the
provisional double patenting rejection over co-pending
applications 10/302,240, 10/115,832, and 10/409,887 has been
withdrawn in light of the filing of the terminal disclaimer.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 26, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Grill.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 16, 18, 20 through 24, 26,
and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Grill.
Claims 17, 19, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Grill in view of Rose.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Xu in view of Grill and further in view of Rose.
Claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 28 stand rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 30 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,486,082 in view of Grill.
To the extent that any one claim is specifically and
separately argued regarding patentability, we will consider such
claim in this appeal. 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).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007