Appeal No. 2003-0905
Application No. 09/781,426
We note that on page 3 of the Brief, appellants discuss a
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection. On page 3 of the
answer, the examiner indicates that this rejection has been
withdrawn.
Therefore, the sole issue on appeal is the rejection of
claims 36 through 50 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1 through 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,004,993.
The examiner relies on the following reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Steiner et al. (Steiner) 6,004,993 Dec. 21, 1999
At the bottom of page 2 of the Brief, appellants state that
the grouping of claims under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting rejection stands or falls
together. We therefore consider claim 36, the broadest claim on
appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (2001).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ Brief and the
examiner’s Answer. This review has led us to conclude that the
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007