Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200
1 11.
2 Appellants make a point in the Appeal Brief, and at oral argument, that the
3 Examiner has “combined” several Ochiai patents to make the double patenting rejecting.
4 Tr-15:12-17.
5 We do not think the Examiner combined several Ochiai patents to make the
6 rejection. However, given the rationale upon which we have affirmed, we find it
7 unnecessary in this case to resolve any issue of whether two or more patents owned by a
8 patentee may be “combined” to support a double patenting rejection of another patent
9 owned by the patentee. We leave that issue for another day.
10 E. ORDER
11 Upon consideration of the record indicated above and for the reasons given, it is
12 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 is
13 affirmed.
14 FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any subsequent
15 action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a) (2005).
16 AFFIRMED.
17
18 ______________________________ )
19 FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior )
19 Administrative Patent Judge
20 )
20
21 )
21
22 )
22 ______________________________ ) BOARD OF
23
24 ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON ) PATENT
24 Administrative Patent Judge
25 ) APPEALS AND
25
26 ) INTERFERENCES
27 )
27 ______________________________ )
28
29 ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
29 Administrative Patent Judge )
30
31
27
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007