Appeal No. 2006-1395 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/687,875
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zills
in view of Millis.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zills
in view of Millis and further in view of Block or Moseley.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed April 7, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (filed January 12, 2005) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant has made no arguments regarding the rejections of claims 19 and
20 under the judicially created obviousness-type double patenting doctrine but rather
states that upon indication of allowable subject matter, the appellant will file a terminal
disclaimer to obviate the rejections. As appellant has made no arguments regarding
these rejections, we will summarily sustain these rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007