Appeal No. 2005-1422 Page 8
Application No. 09/997,522
subject matter. Brief, page 46. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 3,
4, 5, 12, 13 and 57 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No.
5,686,597.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,686,597. Appellants acquiesce to this rejection and assert that a
Terminal Disclaimer will be filed upon an indication of allowable subject matter.
Brief, page 47. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,597.
Claims 9 and 10:
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,686,597. Appellants acquiesce to this rejection and assert that a
Terminal Disclaimer will be filed upon an indication of allowable subject matter.
Brief, page 47. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,597.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007