Appeal 2006-3408
Application 10/885,524
providing information on the lock status (Answer 8). Because this is a case where
the improvement is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions, no further analysis was required by the
Examiner. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Claim 14 was not argued
separately, and falls with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
JRG
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013