Appeal No. 1999-1590
Application No. 08/803,624
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 through 20 for obviousness-
type double patenting is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. The decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 20 under obviousness-type double
patenting is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG:clm
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007