Appeal 2006-3349
Application 09/908,360
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
• claims 80 and 82-851 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kojima,
• claims 80 and 82-99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kojima in view of Hofmeister ‘590 and as unpatentable over Kojima
in view of Hofmeister ‘014,
• claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima in
view of Uehara and as unpatentable over Kojima in view of
Hofmeister ‘590 or Hofmeister ‘014, further in view of Uehara,
• claims 86-92 and 94-99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kojima and Hendrickson,
• claim 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima in
view of Hendrickson and Fyler,2 and
• claims 80 and 82-99 under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 and
2 of Grunes in view of Kojima.3
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed April 4, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed January 17, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed June 5,
2006).
1 The Examiner withdrew this rejection as to claim 86 (Answer 3).
2 The alternative rejection of claim 93 as unpatentable over Hendrickson in
view of Kojima and Fyler has been withdrawn (Answer 3).
3 The Examiner’s reference to “Japanese reference 4-87789” (Final
Rejection 6 and Answer 7) in the statement of the rejection appears to be an
inadvertent error.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013