Ex Parte Ward - Page 13

                   Appeal 2006-2165                                                                                                 
                   Application 10/652,958                                                                                           

                           Therefore, the Examiner should determine, and make of record the                                         
                   results of this determination, as follows: the propriety of rejecting at least                                   
                   claims 2, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                                         
                   Richardson in view of Kearnes, Blackburn, or Seabrook, and (2) whether                                           
                   claim 18 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to obviate the                                     
                   obviousness-type double patenting rejection over Ward I and Ward II.                                             

                                                          DECISION                                                                  
                           The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 20, and                                    
                   21 under § 103(a) over Richardson in view of Kearnes, Blackburn, or                                              
                   Seabrook, or alternatively over Appellant’s admission on page 13 of the                                          
                   Specification is AFFIRMED.                                                                                       
                           The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under the judicially created                                     
                   doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting rejection over Ward I and                                          
                   Ward II is AFFIRMED.                                                                                             
                           No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with                                       
                   this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).                                             
                                                          AFFIRMED                                                                  






                                                                                                                                   
                   Blackburn, Seabrook or alternatively in view of Appellant’s admission at                                         
                   page 13 of his Specification or objected to by the Examiner.   Hence the                                         
                   disposition of claim 18 is unclear.                                                                              

                                                                13                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013