Appeal 2006-2165
Application 10/652,958
Therefore, the Examiner should determine, and make of record the
results of this determination, as follows: the propriety of rejecting at least
claims 2, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Richardson in view of Kearnes, Blackburn, or Seabrook, and (2) whether
claim 18 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to obviate the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection over Ward I and Ward II.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 20, and
21 under § 103(a) over Richardson in view of Kearnes, Blackburn, or
Seabrook, or alternatively over Appellant’s admission on page 13 of the
Specification is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting rejection over Ward I and
Ward II is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
Blackburn, Seabrook or alternatively in view of Appellant’s admission at
page 13 of his Specification or objected to by the Examiner. Hence the
disposition of claim 18 is unclear.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013