Appeal No. 2003-0540 Page 3
Application No. 09/737,001
OPINION
Initially we note that the issue concerning the Information Disclosure Statement
filed on June 29, 2001 raised on page 14 of the brief relates to a petitionable matter
and not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§§ 1002 and 1201. Likewise, the request for interference raised on page 14 of the brief
and the issue of new matter in the abstract raised on pages 4-6 of the brief do not
relate to an appealable matter except to the extent that the new matter issue overlaps
with the rejection of claims 9 to 13 based on the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, we will not review these issues.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Claims 9 to 13 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 14-32 of copending Application No.
08/714,661.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007