Appeal No. 2005-2289 Page 9
Application No. 10/064,508
conclude that the examiner correctly determined that application claim 11 is not
patentably distinct from claim 10 of Isoda for the reasons set forth by the examiner.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 11
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 9 is also affirmed since the appellants
have not argued separately the patentability of any particular claim apart from the
others, thus allowing claims 1 to 9 to fall with claim 11 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199
USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 5, 7 to 9 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 5,
7 to 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed; and the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 to 9 and 11 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting is affirmed.
Since at least one rejection of each of the appealed claims has been affirmed,
the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007