Appeal 2006-3071
Application 09/811,987
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Bauriedel
with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 1, 2, and 4 through 13 would have been obvious as a matter
of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007