Appeal No. 2006-1922 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/207,519
Claims 1, 2, 15, 17-20 and 23-25 stand rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending application No.
09/940,744. This is a provisional rejection because the
conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed December 5,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed September 23, 2005) and reply
brief (filed January 31, 2006) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness and obviousness-
type double patenting relied upon by the examiner as support for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007