Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
moving the marking implement and/or surface relative to one
another so that the marking implement is aligned with one of the
options;
selecting the option if desired and programming the
instrument in accordance with the selected option.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Watanabe 4,025,838 May 24, 1977
Ishiguro et al. 4,836,742 Jun. 6, 1989
(Ishiguro)
Levine 5,978,000 Nov. 2, 1999
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1 and 14-16 of co-pending application
Serial No. 09/900787.
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Levine.
Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Levine, Ishiguro and Watanabe.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note, with displeasure, paragraph II of
appellant’s corrected brief, filed January 24, 2005, wherein
appellant states that “[t]here are no appeals or interferences
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007