Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
Obviousness-type double patenting:
The claims are discussed above. Since Appellant did not address it,
the majority is correct in summarily affirming the provisional rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting.
CONCLUSION
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the rejection of claims
1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting.
I dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the rejection of claims
1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
I concur with the majority’s conclusion that claims 8 and 13 are prima
facie obvious in view of Ley, Hojeibane and Dinh; and that claim 10 is
prima facie obvious in view of Ley, Hojeibane, Dinh and Ndondo-Lay.
However, my reasoning differs from that of the Examiner and the majority.
Ssc
Cyr & Associates, P.A.
Pondview Plaza
5850 Opus Parkway, Suite 114
Minnetonka, MN 55343
34
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Last modified: September 9, 2013