Appeal No. 2006-0335
Application No. 10/301,308
through 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Todd in view of Herz is not sustained.
We have also reviewed the additional patents to Dobreskiand
Smith applied against dependent claims 38 and 39, but find
nothing in those references which would provide response for or
otherwise overcome the deficiencies in the basic combination as
noted above. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 38
and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Todd
in view of Herz and Dobreski or Smith is not sustained.
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
34 through 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 53 through 59 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
is affirmed. In addition, the examiner’s decision to reject
claims 37 through 41, 45, 48 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is affirmed. The decision to reject claims 34 through
42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 53 through 59 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed. Since at least one rejection of each of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007