Appeal No. 2003-1199 Page 7
Application No. 09/125,329
Accordingly, for reasons already discussed, the rejection on grounds of obviousness-
type double patenting is reversed.
We next consider the provisional rejection of claims 1 through 9, 13, 14, 16
through 21, 26, 28, 30, and 31 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1 through 13, 17, and 21 through 23 of Application No.
09/599,688 in view of Muenzel (1966) and Muenzel (1970). This rejection is moot
because Application No. 09/599,688 is now abandoned.
For the sake of completeness, we note Application No. 09/871,366, filed May 31,
2001 as a continuation of Application No. 09/599,688, now abandoned. The '366
application issued September 24, 2002 to Portmann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,455,556).
The claims of the issued patent recite crystal modifications B and C of 1-(2,6-
difluorobenzyl)-1H-1,2,3-triazole-4-carboxamide, which are patentably distinct from
crystal modifications A and A' recited in the claims before us. A copy of U.S. Patent No.
6,455,556 is enclosed with this opinion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007