Appeal No. 2005-2234
Application No. 10/135,005
Claims 21 through 40 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
obvious over claims 1 through 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,039,000.1
The examiner applies the following prior art references:
Hattori et al. (Hattori) 4,851,097 July 25, 1989
Miyoshi et al (Miyoshi) 5,569,392 October 29, 1996
Kaga 5,576542 November 19, 1996
Hirose et al (Hirose) 5,770861 June 23, 1998
Libby et al. (Libby) 6,039,000 March 21, 2000
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ Brief, the
Examiner’s Answer, and the evidence of record. This review has
led us to the following determinations.
OPINION
I. The Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
For the reasons explained in our footnote 1, we affirm this
rejection.
1 We note that appellants do not list this rejection on page 3 of the Brief.
We presume that this is because, in a paper filed by appellants on January
21, 2004, on page 10, appellants stated that once the claims in this case
have been indicated otherwise allowable, appellants will execute and file an
appropriate Terminal Disclaimer. Hence, this rejection is summarily
affirmed.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007