Appeal No. 2006-2700
Application No. 10/705,456
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s provisional rejection
of claims 3 through 21 for the reasons stated in the Examiner’s
Answer.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3 through 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We have also sustained the Examiner’s provisional
rejection of claims 3 through 21 under obviousness double
patenting. Therefore, we affirm.
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).
AFFIRMED
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013