Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200
1 The Examiner’s rejection
2 The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 as being unpatentable based on double
3 patenting.
4 We understand a “first” double patenting rejection to be bottomed on the claims
5 of each of
6 (1) Ochiai U.S. Patent 4,298,606 (‘606) (Ex. 1036) or
7 (2) Ochiai U.S. Patent 4,098,888 (‘888) (Ex. 1037) or
8 (3) Ochiai U.S. Patent 4,203,899 (‘899) (Ex. 1038)
9 “in view of ”
10 (a) Chauvette (Ex 1039),
11 (b) Gottstein (Ex. 1040),
12 (c) Cocker (Ex. 1041),
13 (d) Fieser (Ex. 1042) and
14 (e) Dolfini (Ex 1043).
15 Examiner’s Answer entered 16 November 2005, page 3.
16 A “second” double patenting rejection is bottomed on the claims of either
17 (1) Ochiai ‘888 (Ex. 1037) or
18 (2) Ochiai ‘606 (Ex. 1036).
19 Examiner’s Answer, page 16.
20 Ochiai ‘606
21 Ochiai ‘606 issued on 3 November 1981 and accordingly has expired.
22 Ochiai ‘606 is based on an application filed 28 August 1979 and claims benefit of
23 at least an application filed 19 December 1975 (Ochiai ‘888).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007