Appeal No. 2006-3019
Application No. 09/735,586
activities with respect to the claimed subject matter.
(See In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 719, 184 USPQ 29,
33 (CCPA 1974); In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 182 USPQ
614 (CCPA 1974)).
For the reason set forth above, the rejection of
claims 1-7, 9 and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
affirmed.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claim 8 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Smith and Cooper is proper?
Whether the Rejection of Claims 11 and 12 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Smith and Welsh is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us and the arguments recited above that claims
8, 11 and 12 are rendered obvious over the cited art.
This issue has not been argued by Appellant separately
from the arguments over the other claims. Accordingly,
we affirm the rejections of these claims.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013