Appeal No. 1997-2513
Application No. 08/206,917
have been obvious … to have used a carbocyanine dye in the method of Stewart et
al. as modified by Schwartz and Brosnan et al.”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 11) that Valet does not remedy the deficiency
of the combination of Stewart, Schwartz and Brosnan, see supra. We agree.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combination of Stewart, Schwartz, Brosnan and Valet.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting:
Appellants do not argue the merits of this rejection. Instead, appellants
expressly state (Brief, page 6) that “[a]ppellants stand ready to terminally disclaim
the instant [a]pplication upon issuance of the co-pending [a]pplication as a patent.”
Since no terminal disclaimer has been submitted to overcome this rejection,
we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-12 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
DOUGLAS W. ROBINSON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CAROL A. SPIEGEL )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007