Appeal 2007-0271
Application 09/750,948
See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397
(“person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton”). Thus, the invention of claim 11 would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Appellant’s invention was made.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under § 103(a).
Appellant did not separately argue the patentability of the remaining
claims on appeal. Thus, we also affirm their rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 9 and the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 7, 8, and 10-20.
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) (2006).
AFFIRMED
smsc
JAMES M. STOVER
NCR CORPORATION
1700 SOUTH PATTERSON BLVD, WHQ4
DAYTON, OH 45479
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013