Appeal No. 2000-0064
Application 08/625,241
At the oral hearing assigned for this appeal, appellants’
representative indicated that appellants wished to withdraw the
appeal with respect to the two rejections based on obviousness-
type double patenting because they were prepared to file a
terminal disclaimer if necessary. In view of this indication by
appellants’ representative, we will only consider the rejection
of claims 19-22 and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Fleming
and Stone. We do not address the merits of the obviousness-type
double patenting rejections or of any of the arguments made with
respect to these rejections.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007