Appeal 2007-0510
Application 10/699,507
1 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, O’Rear,
2 Tolvanen, and Garr.
3 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
4 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14-17 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. §
5 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, O’Rear,
6 Tolvanen, and Smrcka.
7 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
8 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15,
9 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 38-45 under the judicially
10 created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
11 over claims 1, 3-9, 15-19, and 24-30 of copending Application 10/779,422.
12 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
13 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 2, 13-18, 20-22, and 33-
14 38 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
15 patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20 and 22-30 of copending
16 Application 10/699,529.
17 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
18 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 2, 13-17, 20, 22, 34-37,
19 39-42, 44, and 45 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
20 double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 10-18, 22, and 23 of
21 copending Application 10/699,508.
22 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
23 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 2, 20, 22, 39, 41, and 44
24 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
25 being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 19-22, and 33-35 of copending
26 Application 10/699,509.
23
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013