1 Congress through § 103; the Primary Examiner has not erred in "sifting out
2 [applicants'] unpatentable material."
3
4 C. Order
5 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
6 ORDERED that the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting
7 claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.2
8 FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of 37 CFR
9 § 1.136(a) are not applicable to time periods for taking subsequent action.
10
11
12
13 /ss/ Fred E. McKelvey )
14 FRED E. McKELVEY )
15 Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
16 ) BOARD OF
17 /ss/ Hubert C. Lorin ) PATENT
17 HUBERT C. LORIN
18 ) APPEALS
18 Administrative Patent Judge
19 ) AND
19 ) INTERFERENCES
20
21 /ss/ Michael P. Tierney )
22 MICHAEL P. TIERNEY )
23 Administrative Patent Judge )
2 Another appropriate rejection might have been based on double patenting over (1) the
claims of Noestheden and (2) the disclosure of Sickmeier. In our view, however, a
double patenting rejection would stand or fall with the rejection made by the Primary
Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For this reason, we find it unnecessary. and decline, to
enter a new ground of rejection based on double patenting.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007