Appeal No. 2007-0495
Application No. 10/699,510
The appellants have not shown that the examiner erred in holding that the subject
matter of claims 1, 13, and 14 would have been obvious over the subject matter of claims
20, 22, and 23 of copending Application 10/699,529.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kolosov et al. is affirmed. The rejection of claims 5 and 23 to 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov et al.
and Shtein et al. is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
20, 22, and 23 of copending Application 10/699,529 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 35 U.S.C. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
/FRED E. McKELVEY/ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
/ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON/ )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
/MICHAEL P. TIERNEY/ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ALH/yrt
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013