Appeal No. 2006-2745 Page 9
Application No. 09/966,119
Obviousness-type Double Patenting:
Claims 8 and 28 rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of
copending United States Patent No. 09/672,911 (‘911), in view of Hardie.
At the October 17, 2006 Oral Hearing, appellants’ representative
affirmatively stated that in response to this rejection appellants’ intend to either
(1) cancel claims 8 and 9 in the ‘911 application, or (2) file a Terminal Disclaimer.
As we understand this assertion, appellants’ concede to the obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of record. To date appellants have not (1) canceled
claims 8 and 9 in the ‘911 application, or (2) filed a Terminal Disclaimer.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 8 and 28 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of copending United States Patent No.
09/672,911 (‘911), in view of Hardie.
SUMMARY
The rejections of record are affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007