The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ROBERT T. HUDAK
__________
Appeal 2006-2699
Application 09/915,494
Technology Center 1600
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before SCHEINER, GRIMES, and LINCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a specimen collection device. The
Examiner has rejected the claims for anticipation or obviousness and
provisionally rejected for obviousness-type double patenting. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We affirm the provisional double
patenting rejection, but reverse the anticipation and obviousness rejections.
BACKGROUND
The specification describes “a specimen collection device that
includes a chamber . . . capable of collecting a specimen. The device also
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013