Appeal 2007-0435
Application 10/082,794
Appellants having not persuaded us of error in the rejection of any claim, we
sustain all the rejections over the applied prior art.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the provisional rejection of claims 1-52 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1, 3-22, 24-30, 33, 35-38, 41-63, 66-75, 77-80, 83, and 84 of copending
Application No. 10/082,807 is affirmed. The provisional rejection of claims
1-4, 10-12, 15-17, 22-24, 26, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44-46, and 48 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-8, 19-23, 26, 27, 31-36, 38, 39, 43, and 44 of
copending Application No. 10/784,492 is affirmed. The rejection of claims
1, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, 38, 39, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-9, 12-15, 18-21, 23-37, 40-43, and 45-52 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
not respond to the Examiner’s findings in support of the rejection, much less
demonstrate error in any of the findings.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013