Appeal 2007-0399
Application 09/961,024
problem.” (KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at
1397 (2007). Examiner demonstrated that the claimed limitations are
within the prior art, in references within the same field of endeavor, and
addressing the Appellants’ problem on the way to addressing their own.
Concerning the procedural issue of citing references to establish the
Examiner’s Official Notice of a known technology, we see no error for this
tribunal to address.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not established that claims 1 to 14, 16 to 18, 28 to 31, 33 to
44, and 49 were rejected in error. We will affirm the rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 14, 16 to 18, 28 to 31, 33 to
44, and 49 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).
AFFIRMED
rwk
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND OR 97204
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013