Appeal No. 98-1207 Page 16
Application No. 08/420,648
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 17, 32 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
Dependent claims 18 through 24, 33 through 36 and 38
through 41 have not been separately argued by the appellant.
Accordingly, these claims will be treated as falling with
their parent claims. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus,
it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims
18 through 24, 33 through 36 and 38 through 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is also affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 17 through 41 under the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting is affirmed, however, for reasons explained
supra, we have denominated our affirmance a new ground of
rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b); the decision of the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007