Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
Claims 12, 14, 17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30 stand
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 6 through 10 of copending application ser. no.
08/086,151 in view of Petry or Bock.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the prior art rejections of claims 12, 14,
17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30, and sustain the provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 12, 14,
17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30.
Appellant’s response (Brief, page 15) to the provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is that
"[a]pplicant, if required, will submit an appropriate Terminal
Disclaimer." Inasmuch as appellant has not challenged the
propriety of the provisional rejection, we will sustain the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007