Appeal No. 2006-1922 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/207,519
the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants' arguments
set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the examiner's answer. Upon consideration of the record before
us, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, 17-20 and
23-25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting. We note at the outset (brief, pages 3 and 4)
that appellants have not provided any arguments to dispute the
provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection, but
rather indicate their willingness to file a terminal disclaimer.
Accordingly, we are not convinced of any error on the part of
the examiner, and affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, 17-20
and 23-25 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, 17-20 and
23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kostial
in view of Pearson. We begin with claim 1, the sole independent
claim before us for decision on appeal. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007