Appeal No. 1996-2350
Application 07/843,833
On this record, we determine that a summary
affirmance of the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
of claims 1-6 is in order.7
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tsai '124 in view
of Singh, Phillips and Schwarzl is reversed. The decision of
the examiner to reject claims 1-6 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over all of the claims of Tsai '201 is affirmed.
7We note that appellant has not furnished separate
arguments regarding the dependent claims 2-6 with respect to
this rejection. Accordingly, the patentability of these
claims falls with the patentability of claim 1 with respect to
this rejection.
Page 10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007