Appeal No. 2005-0183
Application No. 09/206,218
We affirm the examiner’s provisional rejection for
obviousness-type double patenting essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer. See Ex parte Karol, 8 USPQ2d 1771, 1773
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988)(a provisional rejection may properly
be made over rejected claims of a co-pending application). We
reverse the examiner’s rejections based on prior art under
section 103(a) essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief,
Reply Brief, and those reasons set forth below. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
OPINION
A. The Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
The examiner states the findings and conclusion of law with
regard to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection over
the claims of Application No. 09/206,216 on pages 8-9 of the
Answer. Appellants do not dispute or contest the facts or
conclusion set forth in this provisional rejection (see the Brief
and Reply Brief in their entirety). Appellants note their
intention to file an appropriate terminal disclaimer upon
1(...continued)
therefore the obviousness-type double patenting rejections over
each of these applications have been withdrawn (Letter dated July
30, 2004, Paper No. 38). Accordingly, these rejections are not
on appeal before this merits panel.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007