Appeal Number: 2006-3321
Application Number: 09/843,381
Thus, Kondo anticipates the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 6. The
examiner should consider the patentability of the remaining dependent claims with
respect to the art of record .
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
• The rejection of claims 1-18 under the judicially recognized doctrine of
obviousness type double patenting for claiming an obvious variation of the
subject matter claimed in another U.S. Patent is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Seo is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seo
and Partyka is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims 6-8 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Seo and Whigham is not sustained.
• Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new ground of
rejection
o Independent claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kondo.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013