Appeal No. 2006-1124 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/652,112
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claim is:
Polakoff et al. (Polakoff) 449,430 Mar. 31, 1891
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 to 3, 5, 9 to 14, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Polakoff.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending
Application No. 10/652,111.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 2, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed September 12, 2005) and reply brief (filed December
27, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
1 This is a new ground of rejection made in the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007