The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ANDREW JAY SKOOG, JANE ANN MURPHY
and TIMOTHY RAY LATTIRE
______________
Appeal No. 2006-1961
Application No. 10/726,357
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WALTZ and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-22.
Under the heading GROUNDS OF REJECTION in the examiner’s
answer, the examiner lists three rejections based on Skoog et al.
U.S. Patent No. 6,720,034. In particular, claims 1-5 stand
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 2, 4-6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No.
6,720,034. Claims 1-9 and 16-18 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007