Appeal No. 97-0374
Application 08/310,493
Murphy is sustained.
While we have fully considered the arguments advanced by
appellant in the brief, we are not convinced thereby of any
error in the examiner's position. Like the examiner, we note
that appellant has not expressly indicated in the brief exactly
why it would not have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled
artisan to modify Murphy in the manner posited by the examiner
in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Instead, appellant has
merely made the broad assertion that the examiner has not
provided a factual basis to support a prima facie case of
obviousness. As indicated above, we do not agree with this
position.
For the reasons stated in the examiner's answer, as
amplified above, the decision of the examiner rejecting appealed
claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007