Appeal No. 2006-1922 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/207,519
obviousness of claim 1. The rejection of Claim 1, and claims 2,
15, 17-20 and 23-25, which depend therefrom, is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1, 2, 15, 17-20 and 23-25 under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed. The decision
of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 15, 17-20 and 23-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007