Appeal 2007-3374
Application 10/448,758
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1 through 6, 14, and 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by the disclosure of Mawson;
2. Claims 7 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Mawson;
3. Claims 1 through 11 and 14 through 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Sigel ‘501 and
Carder;
4. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Sigel ‘501, Carder, and Schneider;
5. Claims 1 through 11 and 14 through 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of MacQueen and
Carder;
6. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of MacQueen, Carder, and Schneider; and
7. Claims 1 through 23 under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over Claims 1 through 36
of Sigel ‘625 in view of Carder.
The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims on appeal. This appeal ensues.
ISSUES
1. Has the Examiner demonstrated that Mawson clearly and
unequivocally describes expressly or inherently each and every limitation
recited in claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013