Appeal No. 2006-0673 Page 4
Application No. 09/919,555
Claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 45-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,879,915 ("Cattell '915")1, and claims 1, 2, 4-16, and
47-54 stand rejected as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,180,351 ("Cattell '351").
Claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 47-54 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over U.S. Patent No. 5,968,728 ("Perttunen") and U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2002/0086319A1 ("Ellson"). Claims 45 and 46 further stand rejected under
§ 103(a) as obvious over Perttunen; Ellson; and U.S. Patent No. 6,215,894 ("Zeleny").
In addition, claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 45-54 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness type double-patenting over claims 1-19 of Cattell '351.
II. OPINION
"Reply briefs are to be used to reply to matter raised in the brief of the appellee."
Kaufman Company, Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 973 n.*, 1 USPQ2d 1202, 1204
n.* (Fed. Cir. 1986). The term "reply brief" is exactly that, a brief in reply to new
rejections or new arguments set forth in an examiner’s answer.
1The examiner had provisionally rejected claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 45-54 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. 09/775,387 to Cattell.
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) Because the Application has matured into U.S. Patent
No. 6,879,915, however, we treat the rejection as being non-provisional under the
Patent (i.e., Cattell '915).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007