Appeal No. 2003-2103 Page 9
Application No. 09/826,256
unpatentable over Bruijns. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2
and 4-8 which fall therewith, as being unpatentable over Bruijns.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 4-8 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting and under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bruijns is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007