Appeal No. 2005-2439
Application No. 09/754,378
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the prior
art rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that appellants’ specification supports the invention of claims
82 and 91. We are also of the view that the evidence relied upon
by the examiner supports the examiner’s prior art rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the examiner’s rejections of the claims
based on obviousness-type double patenting. We note that
appellants have elected not to address these rejections in the
appeal brief [brief, page 10]. Therefore, we sustain these
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007