Appeal No. 1999-1252
Application No. 08/648,520
appeal, we conclude that it is appropriate to sustain only the
provisional rejection of all appealed claims under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting and the section
103 rejection of claims 35 through 39 and 42 through 45 as
being unpatentable over Suggitt. None of the other rejections
advanced by the examiner on this appeal can be sustained.
The issues raised by this appeal and our disposition of
them correspond to the issues and their disposition of
copending Appeal No. 99-2548 for the appellants’ earlier
mentioned application Serial No. 08/648,236. Accordingly, we
refer to our decision in Appeal No. 99-2548 for a complete
exposition of the issues raised by the subject appeal and our
reasons for disposing of them in the manner discussed herein.
The discussion below constitutes a brief summary of these
matters.
We summarily sustain the provisional rejection of all
claims based upon obviousness-type double patenting because
the appellants have not contested this rejection with any
reasonable specificity on the record before us (see the last
full paragraph on page 21 of the brief). The section 103
rejection of claims 35 through 39 and 42 through 45 as being
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007