Appeal No. 2002-0218
Application No. 09/332,415
VI. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya,
Setzer, Dicks, and Bhatta.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellant in support of their respective
positions. As a consequence of this review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS
The examiner has provisionally rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 9,
12-20, 22 and 23 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1 through 22 of copending Application Serial No.
09/321,390 in view of either Dicks or Dicks and Clawson. The
appellant has not challenged the examiner’s factual findings and
conclusions supporting the obviousness-type double patenting
rejections in question. Rather, the appellant asserts that
(Brief, page 16):
These rejections will not be addressed in this appeal
brief since they are not ripe for resolution at this
point in time.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007