Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
4. The examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kuen ‘162, Keuhn, Jr. and Sauer,
as applied to claim 1, and further in view of LaFortune.
5. The examiner has rejected claims 22, 24, 26, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuen ‘162,
Keuhn, Jr. and Sauer, as applied to claim 21, and further in
view of Ygge.
6. The examiner has provisionally rejected claims 1-2, 6, 10,
11, 17, 19, 21, 30, 34, and 35 under the judicially-created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-16, 20-26, 28-45, and 48-51 of
co-pending Application No. 10/032,383.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed May 19, 2005) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the appellants’ brief (filed April 7, 2005) and reply brief (filed July
15, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007