Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 5
Application No. 10/039,338
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The double patenting rejections
We sustain the rejection of claims 18 to 34 under the judicially created doctrine of
double patenting over claims 1 to 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,354,021 and the rejection of
claims 18 to 34 under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1 to
10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,259,129.
In the final rejection (p. 6) and the answer (pp. 7-8), the examiner set forth his
rationale as to why claims 18 to 34 were subject to these rejections under the judicially
created doctrine of double patenting.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007