Appeal No. 2006-2700
Application No. 10/705,456
C. Claims 3 through 21 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of the copending
application 2004/013961.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs1
and the Examiner’s Answer.2 Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been taken into consideration. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)
(vii)(effective Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on April 3, 2006. Appellants filed a Reply
Brief on June 12, 2006.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on May 4, 2006. The Examiner
mailed a communication on June 20, 2006 indicating that the Reply Brief had
been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013