Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE-PATENTING
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14-23, 35, 28-29, 31, 34-
40, 42-44, 47-52, 54, 57-59, 61, and 64-74 as obvious variations on the
subject matter in claims 1-9 of the Liu patent. We have already determined
that these claims (and more) were either anticipated or obvious in view of
the Liu patent.
The availability of the Liu patent as prior art has not been raised as an
issue on appeal. The claims of the Liu patent are presumably supported by
the Liu disclosure. Moreover, the Liu patents are part of the teachings of the
Liu patent. Thus, it is difficult to see on these facts how this rejection is not
moot.
This appeal with respect to this rejection is DISMISSED as moot.
THE REJECTIONS OVER LESTER AND LESTER WITH WAN
Claims 1-3, 5-31, 34-59, 61. and 64-74 stand rejected over Lester.
Claims 62 and 63 stand rejected over Lester in combination with Wan.
Rejections of all of these claims (and more) over the Liu patent have been
affirmed.
Lester is highly pertinent prior art, but it does not teach a washcoat.
This deficiency makes Lester less pertinent than Liu to the claims as we
have construed them. We DISMISS the appeal with respect to this rejection
as moot.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013