Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
obviousness. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47
USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
We note that appellants have indicated that they, “will
file a terminal disclaimer when and if the remaining
rejections are resolved, therefore, it does not appear
pertinent to address this issue at this time.” See Brief,
page 2, footnote 1. We regard appellants’ statement as
acquiescing in the examiner’s rejection. Hence, we summarily
sustain it.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and
16 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.
S. Patent No. 5,158,763 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haefele (I-II-
III) combined with Ploger (I-II) is affirmed.
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007