Appeal 2007-0414
Application 10/691,113
note that Appellants base no argument on unexpected results attributed to the
claimed spacing.
One final point remains. In the event of further prosecution of the
subject matter at bar, such as by way of a continuing application, the
Examiner should also consider rejecting the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the Johnson disclosure.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims 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) (2004).
AFFIRMED
clj
Rankin, Hill, Porter & Clark, LLP
925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 700
Cleveland, OH 44115-1405
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013