Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
F. Summary
Claim 2 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. Claims 2, 4-7, 11-18, 21-28, and 30-34 are unpatentable under
§§ 102(b) and/or 103(a). Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 18-19, and 32-34 are
unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 5-15 of copending application 09/902,965. Claims 10,
20, and 29 depend on rejected base claims. Finally, in view of the recent
Supreme Court decision in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82
USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Examiner may wish to develop the record as to
whether the subject matter of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the disclosure of Slipp and/or
Son.
G. Order
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4-7,
and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Slipp is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Slipp is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Son is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner's rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Slipp in view of Son is
REVERSED;
36
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013