Appeal No. 2006-2627 Page 13
Application No. 09/947,833
Appellants did not dispute the merits of these rejections, but “reserve[d] the right
to address these rejections at a later time, either through traversal, claim amendment,
or by filing terminal disclaimers, upon the indication of otherwise allowable subject
matter.” Supplemental Reply Brief, page 1.
Since Appellants have not provided any basis on which to conclude that the
rejections for obviousness-type double patenting are improper, we affirm them.
Summary
The examiner has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness, so we
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants have not disputed the merits of
the rejections for obviousness-type double patenting, so we affirm those rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED IN PART
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge ) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
)
Richard M. Lebovitz ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007