Appeal 2007-0435
Application 10/082,794
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-52 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1, 3-22, 24-30, 33, 35-38, 41-63, 66-75, 77-80, 83, and 84
of copending Application No. 10/082,807.
2. Claims 1-4, 10-12, 15-17, 22-24, 26, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44-46,
and 48, are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-8, 19-23, 26, 27, 31-36, 38, 39, 43, and 44 of copending
Application No. 10/784,492.
3. Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, 38, 39, and 44 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by BEA.
4. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BEA and dreamBean.
5. Claims 5-8, 18, 23-25, 28-30, 40, 45-47, and 50-52 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over BEA and Monson-
Haefel.
6. Claim 9, 19, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BEA and Pagé.
7. Claims 12, 31, and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BEA and Chan.
8. Claims 13, 20, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over BEA and admitted prior art (“Background of the
Invention” section appearing on pages 1-3 of the originally filed
specification) (“APA”).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013