Appeal 2006-1312
Application 09/955,604
Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims
23, 24, 30 through 32, 89, 90, 92, 93, 134 through 136, 138 through 143 and,
145 through 148 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
We summarily affirm the provisional ground of rejection under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type-double patenting because
Appellants have stated their intention to “appropriately” respond “upon an
indication of otherwise allowable subject matter and in the event that this
rejection is maintained” (Br. 12).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007