Appeal No. 2001-0119
Application No. 09/281,870
above, no terminal disclaimer has been filed in this case.
Accordingly, there is no need for us to decide whether a
hypothetical “limited terminal disclaimer” would be sufficient to
overcome the examiner’s rejection or, for that matter, decide
whether we even have any authority to invalidate a regulation
promulgated by the Director through proper rulemaking procedures.
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 32 through 46, 56 through 63, 66 through 68, and 71
through 75 of the Wheeler patent.
The decision of the examiner 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007