Appeal 2006-2854
Application 10/348,165
Double Patenting Rejection
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-30, and 43-44 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over
claims 1, 2, 4-21, 24, 36-38, and 40-46 of US Patent 6,964,747. We affirm.
Appellants do not explain the reasons why the appealed claims are
patentably indistinct from the claims of the US Patent 6,964,747. Appellants
only state that “[t]he obviousness-type double patenting rejection should also
be reversed, as the claims in the application Serial No. 10/348,123 (now US
Patent 6,964,747) are widely different from the claims at issue” (Br. 12). It
is not the function of this Board to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by Appellants. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21
USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”); see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). We affirm the stated rejection because Appellants
have failed to explain the reasons they believe that the rejection is
inappropriate.
Decision
All of the stated prior art rejections are reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-30, and 43-44 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 2, 4-21,
24, 36-38, and 40-46 of US Patent 6,964,747, 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).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013