Appeal 2007-0510
Application 10/699,507
1 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
2 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14-17 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C.
3 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, O’Rear,
4 Tolvanen, and Smrcka?
5 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
6 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15,
7 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 38-45 under the judicially
8 created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
9 over claims 1, 3-9, 15-19, and 24-30 of copending Application 10/779,422?
10 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
11 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 2, 13-18, 20-22, and 33-
12 38 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
13 patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20 and 22-30 of copending
14 Application 10/699,529?
15 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
16 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 2, 13-17, 20, 22, 34-37,
17 39-42, 44, and 45 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
18 double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 10-18, 22, and 23 of
19 copending Application 10/699,508?
20 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
21 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 2, 20, 22, 39, 41, and 44
22 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
23 being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 19-22, and 33-35 of copending
24 Application 10/699,509?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013