Appeal No. 94-2153
Application 07/333,362
after receipt of a Notice of Allowance.” Appellants did not argue in the Appeal Brief that
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection was either legally or factually unsound.
The examiner repeated the obviousness-type double patenting rejection in the
Examiner’s Answer. See page 6 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Since appellants were aware of the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
prior to filing of the Appeal Brief and did not argue the merits of the rejection in the
Appeal Brief, we will affirm the obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
William F. Smith ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
John D. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007