Appeal 2007-0770
Application 09/752,330
1 CONCLUSION
2 We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 48 under the
3 judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. However, we do
4 not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 48 under 35 U.S.C.
5 § 103(a) as we do not find that sufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s
6 rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 37. The decision of the Examiner
7 is affirmed.
8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
9 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
10
11 AFFIRMED
12
13
14
15
16
17 vsh
18
19
20 HESLIN, ROTHENBERG, FARLEY & MESITI PC
21 5 COLUMBIA CIRCLE
22 ALBANY NY 12203
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013