Appeal No. 1996-0478
Application No. 08/171,769
exclusivity of the rights granted beyond the term of the patent. Therefore, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, and 31 under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 20, 23, 24, 27, 30,
and 31 under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-5 of U.S.
Patent No. 4,727, 044 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD:clm
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007