Appeal 2007-0803
Application 10/197,801
Pages 3 and 4 of the Answer identify all claims on appeal as rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
being unpatentable over claim 25 of U.S. Patent 6,469,568. Claims 1, 5, 10
through 12, and 14 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Hirano. On the other hand, claims 21 through 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner
relies upon Mattison in view of Hirano.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for the Appellants’ positions,
and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We affirm.
Turning first to the rejection of all claims on appeal under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, since the
remarks at the top of page 15 of the principal Brief on appeal indicate that a
terminal disclaimer has not been filed in this application, we sustain this
rejection. Correspondingly, this rejection has not been traversed on the
merits.
In like manner, we have concluded that the Appellants have not set
forth any arguments or evidence before us in the Brief and Reply Brief that
the Examiner has erred in any manner as to the rejection of the identified
claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Accordingly, we affirm these
rejections as well.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013