Appeal No. 2006-1678
Application No. 10/677,869
As a final point with respect to the § 103 rejection, we
note that appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which would serve to
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
examiner.
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 Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007