Appeal No. 2006-0335
Application No. 10/301,308
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the rejections set forth in the answer
and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding those rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed June 24, 2004) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (filed May 3,
2004) and reply brief (filed August 26, 2004) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 53 through 59 based on
obviousness-type double patenting.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007