Appeal No. 2006-0594
Application No. 09/740,708
As for the obviousness-type double patenting rejection,
appellants rely upon the same arguments as those presented
against the § 103 rejection over WO '973 in view of Nazmy.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007