Appeal 2007-2091
Application 10/191,161
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-20, 22-28, and 30 of copending Application No.
09/870,538 (Prueitt).
Kaneko US 6,856,412 B1 Feb. 15, 2005
Todaka US 6,785,022 B1 Aug. 31, 2004
Picoult US 2002/0065101 A1 May 30, 2002
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-
9, 11-15, 17-20, 22-28, and 30 of copending Application No. 09/870,538
(hereinafter ‘538) in view of Kaneko.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Picoult in view of Todaka.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 12, 2006 ) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed
November 15, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013