Appeal No. 2006-2745 Page 2
Application No. 09/966,119
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Kent 6,171,549 Jan. 9, 2001
Hardie EP 0 064 210 B2 Nov. 11, 1982
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 8 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hardie and Kent.
Claims 8 and 28 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of
copending U.S. Patent No. 09/672,911, in view of Hardie.
We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness:
Claims 8 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hardie and Kent. Appellants do not
separately argue or group the claims on appeal. Accordingly, claims 8 and 28
will stand or fall together. Since the claims stand or fall together, we limit our
discussion to representative independent claim 28. Claim 8 will stand or fall
together with claim 28. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claim 28 is drawn to a composition that comprises “irradiated Cohn
Fraction II + III.” According to claim 28, this composition is “suitable for oral
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007