Appeal No. 2001-0857 Page 2
Application No. 09/012,166
(b) at least one isocyanate functional compound,
and
(c) at least one mercapto functional compound.
Claims 1 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Liebel in view of De
Santis.
Claims 1 through 17 also stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obvious-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 10 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,977,285 in view of De Santis.
On page 4 of the brief, appellants state that all the
claims stand or fall together. We therefore consider claim
1 on appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000).
For the reasons set forth in the brief, in the reply
brief, and below, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Liebl
in view of De Santis.
We affirm the rejection under the judicially created
doctrine of obvious-type double patenting over claims 1
through 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,977,285 in view of De
Santis, because appellants have not contested this
rejection, and because appellants have stated they will file
a terminal disclaimer to remove this rejection. Hence, upon
return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, appellants must file a terminal disclaimer to
remove this rejection.
OPINION
In Paper No. 18, the examiner indicates that the
independent claims have been interpreted to mean a coating
comprising components A, B, and C. The examiner states
that, in other words, when this coating is on a substrate,
it somehow involves components A, B, and C. The examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007