Appeal No. 2005-2522 Page 15
Application No. 09/841,453
nanoporous film claimed in Rutherford to impart hydrophobic
properties to the claimed nanoporous film of Rutherford.
Moreover, we do not find appellants’ unsupported contentions
concerning the polymeric chain length of the polymers of Grainger
as mitigating against their use with a nanoporous film as claimed
in Rutherford to be persuasive for reasons analogous to those set
forth above with respect to the examiner’s Section 103(a)
rejections. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s obviousness-
type double patenting rejection, on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2-16, 18-21
and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin
in view of Grainger and Kotelnikov; to reject claims 22-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin in view of
Grainger and Kotelnikov; to reject claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Grainger,
Kotelnikov and Burns; and to reject claims 2-29 and 31-34 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-19 of U.S. patent No. 6,318,124 in view
of Grainger and Kotelnikov is affirmed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007