Appeal No. 1998-0460 Page 14
Application No. 08/480,765
The appellants do not contest the rejection of claims 17
and 19-33 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting. They instead state, “Applicants will either submit
a terminal disclaimer or cancel the claims rejected under
obviousness type double-patenting.” (Appeal Br. at 21.) We
are not persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims
17 and 19-33 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over Bacon. Therefore, we affirm pro forma the
rejection.
Our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
brief. Arguments not made therein are not before us, are not
at issue, and are considered waived.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 12-16, 18, 34-63,
and 68-70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The rejection of claims 12-16, 18, 34-63, and 68-70 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is also reversed. The rejection of claims 17 and
19-33 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
is affirmed. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007