Appeal 2007-1751
Application 09/769,511
1 of both Greene and Haralambopoulos, and the combination produces billing rates,
2 as needed in Jones, Among, and the claimed invention.
3 Therefore, we find the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
4 The Appellant contends that claim 14 is patentable for the same reasons as
5 claim 13 (Br. 11, Last full ¶), and stands or falls with claim 13.
6 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 14 under
7 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Greene, Lynch-Aird, Chang, Harrison, and
8 Haralambopoulos.
9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
11 in rejecting claims 2-6 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
12 prior art.
13 On this record, the Appellant is not entitled to a patent containing claims 2-6
14 and 8-19.
15 DECISION
16 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
17 • The rejection of claims 2-5, 8-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
18 obvious over Greene, Lynch-Aird, and Chang is sustained.
19 • The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Greene,
20 Lynch-Aird, Chang, and Harrison is sustained.
21 • The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
22 Greene, Lynch-Aird, Chang, Harrison, and Haralambopoulos is sustained.
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013