Appeal No. 2006-1144
Application No. 09/975,806
simply points out that the “secondary references” do not cure
the asserted deficiencies of Kreth as discussed in the traversal
of the § 102 rejection. We also note that appellant bases no
argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
unexpected results, which would serve to rebut the inference of
obviousness established by the applied prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective Sept. 13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
Edward C. Kimlin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Chung K. Pak ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Catherine Timm )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007