Appeal No. 2005-0806 Page 4
Application No. 10/179,812
The provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 13 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 to 8, 12 and 13 of
copending Application No. 08/815,556. Application No. 08/815,556 became abandoned
on August 25, 2004. Since no patent can issue on an abandoned application, there is
no basis for a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Claims 1 to 13 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 to 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,623,381.
In the final rejection (p. 4) and the answer (p. 5), the examiner set forth his
determination that claims 1 to 13 are not patentably distinct from claims 1 to 14 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,623,381.
The appellant has not specifically contested this rejection in the brief. Since the
appellant has not asserted any error that would cause this rejection of claims 1 to 13 to
be in error, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 13 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 to 14 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,623,381.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007