Appeal 2006-1578
Application 09/520,032
Rochlis US 3,312,583 Apr. 4, 1967
Bloecher US 4,799,939 Jan. 24, 1989
Larson US 4,903,440 Feb. 27, 1990
Pieper US 5,152,917 Oct. 6, 1992
The Examiner has rejected appealed claims 20, 21, 25 through 28,
33 through 54, 94 through 96, and 98 through 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pieper in view of Rochlis and either of Larson or
Bloecher (Answer 4-8), and has provisionally rejected appealed claims 17,
20, 25 through 28, 33 through 54, 94 through 96, and 98 through 111 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type- double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 23, 24, 30 through 32, 89, 92, 93, and
134 through 136, 138 through 143, and 145 through 148 of copending
Application 09/955,6041,2 (Answer 8-9).
Appellants argue claims 20, 21, 25 through 28, 33 through 54,
94 through 96, and 98 through 111 as a first group and claims 20, 21,
33 through 54, and 98 through 111 as a second group with respect to the first
ground of rejection, and generally address the second ground of rejection
(Br. 7, 9, 11). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 20 and
25 as representative of the grounds of rejection and Appellants’ groupings of
claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
We affirm.
1 We find that the stated claims are pending in Application 09/955,604
although the Examiner states the rejection as involving “claims 23, 24, 30
through 32, 89, 92, 93, and 133 through 148” of that application (Answer 8).
2 We concurrently enter an opinion in related appeal 2006-1312 in
application 09/955,604.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007