Appeal No. 2002-1863
Application No. 09/206,207
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over EP ‘060 in view of Eberly
and Glockner (Answer, page 5). Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12, 13, 15, 17-19
and 27 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 2, and
4-10 of copending application no. 09/206,208 (Answer, page 5). The
claims on appeal stand provisionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over (1)
claims 1-14 of copending application no. 09/206,218 (Answer, page
6); (2) claims 9-14 of copending application no. 09/206,210 (id.);
and (3) claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, 16-20, 22, 24 and 27 of copending
application no. 09/206,216 (Answer, page 7).
We summarily affirm all of the examiner’s provisional
rejections based on obviousness-type double patenting for the
reasons stated in the Answer. We reverse the examiner’s rejections
based on section 103(a) essentially for the reasons stated in the
Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons set forth below. Therefore
the decision of the examiner to reject the claims on appeal is
affirmed.
OPINION
A. The Rejections based on Obviousness-type Double Patenting
Appellants do not contest the examiner’s provisional
rejections based on the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007