Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
(3) Claims 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Son.
(4) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Slipp in view of Son.
(5) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Slipp in view of Folini.
(6) Claims 12-17, and 27-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Slipp in view of Folini in further view of Chang.
(7) Claims 18, 21, and 30-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Slipp in view of Fox.4
(8) Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 18-19, and 32-34 stand provisionally
rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 5-15 of copending Application 09/902,965.
We affirm.
B. Indefiniteness
"The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether those skilled in the art
would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is read in light of
the rest of the specification." Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake
Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 692, 57 USPQ2d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
citing Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576,
1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
4 The addition of claim 21 to the Non-Final Rejection entered 22 November
2005 of claims 18 and 30-34 under § 103(a) over Slipp in view of Fox was
made of record in the Interview Summary mailed 16 May 2006.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013