(4) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakamoto in view of Halasy-Wimmer.
(5) Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakamoto in view of Neuhaus and Halasy-Wimmer.
(6) Claims 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28 and 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Halasy-Wimmer.
(7) Claims 11, 14 and 15 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Pat. No.
6,382,741 in view of Halasy-Wimmer.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed February 15, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed July 22, 2004) and reply brief (filed January
31, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007