Appeal No. 2006-1023
Application No. 10/275,859
On page 6 of the Answer dated August 8, 2005, the Examiner rejects the
subject matter of claim 6 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-12 of Application No.
10/181,919 (‘919 application).2, 3 On July 26, 2002, an amendment was filed in
the ‘919 application, canceling claims 1-12. On February 8, 2005, Application
No. 10/181,919 issued as US Patent 6,852,881. The Examiner has failed to indicate
that the double patenting rejection was applicable to the claims that remained
in the ‘919 application after the July 26, 2002 amendment or that the rejection
was applicable to the claims of the issued patent. Thus, the basis of the
rejection of the subject matter of claim 6 under double patenting is unclear.
We also note that in the remaining obviousness-type double patenting
rejections presented in Answer that the Examiner has failed to detail the
specifics of these rejections.
The Board is required by the Federal Circuit to analyze the claims on a
limitation-by-limitation basis, with specific fact finding for each contested
limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings. Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The
the issues are not ripe for review.
2 The Examiner’s reasoning for the rejection appears in the Final Rejection mailed April 19,
2005.
3 The Appellants in the Brief, filed May 27, 2005, and the Reply Brief, filed September 26, 2005,
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007