Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
2 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
3 being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, Garr, and O’Rear or
4 Gatto?
5 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
6 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 11, 12, 15-18, and
7 21-23 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
8 patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 17, 18, and 24-30 of
9 copending Application 10/779,422?
10 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
11 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3 and 10-14 under the
12 judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
13 unpatentable over claims 20, 22-24, and 26-30 of copending Application
14 10/699,529?
15 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
16 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1-3, 10-18, 22, and 23
17 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
18 being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 13-17, 20, 22, 34-37, 39-42, 44, and 45
19 of copending Application 10/699,507?
20 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
21 Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1, 3, 15, 17, and 22 under
22 the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
23 unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 19-22, and 33-35 of copending Application
24 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