Appeal 2006-2992
Application 10/073,710
We cannot sustain the second obviousness-type rejection as set forth
on page 9 of the Answer. The Examiner bases this rejection on claims 22-27
of Asmussen ‘668 but we do not find these claims in the reference. We find
only claims 1-16 in Asmussen ‘668. Therefore, we reverse this ground of
rejection.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gruen in view of Asmussen ‘103, Asmussen ‘668,
Asmussen ‘293, or Asmussen ‘900. We affirm the rejection of claims 13
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the references listed above further in
view of Herb.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-17, and 19 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1, 2, and 4 of Asmussen ‘668 in view of Gruen. We reverse the rejection of
claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-17, and 19 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 22-27 of Asmussen ‘668 in
view of Gruen.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2007).
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013