Appeal No. 2002-1905
Application No. 09/240,563
changes in the law supersede the terminal disclaimer requirements
of Van Ornum.
In summary, the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 22 through 27 is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 22 through 27
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007