Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
through 28, 40 through 49 and 52 through 56 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Thalenfeld in view of Petrou
is not sustained.
As for the double patenting rejections based on
Application No. 08/940,859, we REMAND this application back to
the examiner to reconsider the provisional nature of the
obviousness-type double patenting rejections now that the
application (08/940,859) has issued as a U.S. patent.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
is affirmed-in-part.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a remand. 37 CFR §
1.196(e) provides that
whenever a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences includes or allows a remand, that decision
shall not be considered a final decision. When
appropriate, upon conclusion of proceedings on remand
before the examiner, the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences may enter an order otherwise making its
decision final.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007