Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 5
Application No. 10/754,306
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon supports the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection
We agree that the examiner’s nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1 and 16 (as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11
of U.S. Pat. No. 6,717,528 to Burleson) is appropriate on this record. However, we
note that appellants have rendered this issue moot by filing a terminal disclaimer
on May 18, 2006. The terminal disclaimer was accepted by the paralegal and
entered in the record on May 25, 2006.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
We consider the obviousness of the following logical groups of claims, as
defined under separate subheadings and argued separately by appellants in the
briefs.
GROUP A: Claims 1-3, 7, 16-18 and 66-68 [brief, page 9].
GROUP B: Claims 4, 19, and 69 [brief, page 17].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007