Appeal No. 2002-0846
Application 09/503,452
case, we need not reach the issue of whether or not the showing
of unexpected results discussed in appellants’ reply brief is
sufficient. In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims
17-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hamano in view Doleman.
II. The provisional rejection of claims 17-25 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over certain claims in
co-pending Application No. 08/766,544 in view of Hamano
We will sustain the rejection under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting because appellants
state on page 14 of their brief that they will file a terminal
disclaimer to overcome this rejection.
Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, we call upon the examiner and appellants to handle this
issue accordingly.
III. Conclusion
The rejection of claims 17-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hamano in view of Doleman is reversed.
The provisional rejection under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting rejection is
sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007