Appeal 2007-4147
Application 10/371,754
that the polyurethane adhesive of Sieloff would have been suitable for use as
the adhesive layer in the multilayer article Brunelle.
We note that Appellant has not relied upon evidence of unexpected
results in response to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In conclusion,
based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by the Examiner, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 1-14, and 18-26 is
affirmed.
The Double Patenting Rejection
Claims 1-14, and 18-26 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 22, 28-44, 53, 58, 59, and 63-72 of U.S. Patent
Application No. 10/210,746. We summarily affirm the ground of rejection
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type-double patenting
advanced by the Examiner because Appellant has not addressed this ground
in the Brief (Br. in entirety). See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §
1205.02 (8th ed., Rev. 5, August 2006). 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)(i)(iv).
AFFIRMED
tc/ls
CANTOR COLBURN, LLP
55 GRIFFIN ROAD SOUTH
BLOOMFIELD, CT 06002
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013