Appeal No. 2006-1117 Page 8
Application No. 10/461,308
“similar” materials within the description of Rayburn, especially
with respect to the PPS material.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of Rayburn, which has not been adequately
rebutted by appellants’ arguments. Therefore we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Rayburn.
B. The Rejection under § 103(a)
Appellants’ only argument concerning this rejection is that
“Marotta et al. does not cure the deficiencies of Rayburn, as set
forth above” (Brief, page 7). Therefore we adopt our comments
concerning Rayburn as discussed above, as well as adopt the
examiner’s findings of fact and conclusion of law regarding this
rejection (Answer, pages 3-4).
The rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rayburn in view of Marotta is thus affirmed.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
C. Time Period for Response
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007