Appeal No. 2006-0623
Application No. 10/181,859
With respect to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, the appellant states (the Brief, page 8) that:
The Examiner’s rejection of the claims under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over method claims 8 and 9 of USP 6,734,150 is no
longer contested.
Thus, we summarily affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 11 through 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent 6,734,150 B2
issued to Gao on May 11, 2004.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007