The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CLYDE H. SHEPPARD and HYMAN R. LUBOWITZ
____________
Appeal No. 1999-0207
Application No. 08/477,560
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 14 through 16.1 Claims
1-5, 8-16, 19-33 and 35 are pending in this application. The final
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-16, 19-33 and 35 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1-11, 14-19, 22-28, 30-34 and 36-45 of appellants’ U.S. Patent No.
5,645,925 is not appealed (Brief, page 1; Answer, page 3).
1 Appellants’ amendment, subsequent to the final rejection,
dated Feb. 2, 1998, Paper No. 17, cancelling claims 6, 7 and 34,
has been entered. See the Advisory Action dated Apr. 3, 1998,
Paper No. 18.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007