Appeal No. 2006-1489
Application No. 10/452,059
All of the appealed claims are rejected under the judicially
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 2-14 of U.S. Patent 6,808,785 to
Friedman.
All of the appeal claims also are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rowe in view of either
Lijzenga or Raley.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections, we refer to the brief filed June 13, 2005 as well as
the reply brief filed September 6, 2005 in support of the
appellants’ position and to the answer mailed July 6, 2005 in
support of the examiner’s position.
As an initial matter, we observe that the appellants have
not separately argued dependent claims 2-14 in the manner
required by 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Accordingly, in our
assessment of the contested rejections on appeal, we have focused
only on independent claim 1.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of the rejections advanced on this appeal.
We hereby summarily sustain the obviousness-type double
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007