Appeal No. 2002-1864
Application No. 09/206,208
no. 09/206,207 (Answer, page 4); (2) claims 1-14 of copending
application no. 09/206,218 (Answer, page 5); (3) claims 9-14 of
copending application no. 09/206,210 (id.); and (4) claims 1, 2,
4-10, 12-14, 16-20, 22, 24 and 27 of copending application no.
09/206,216 (Answer, page 6).
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 rejection
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-
type double patenting (Brief, pages 4-5). Appellants state their
intention of submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer when one
or more of the copending applications listed above issue as a
patent (Brief, page 5). Accordingly, we summarily affirm all of
the examiner’s provisional rejections based on the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. See In re
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007