Appeal No. 1997-0854
Application No. 08/292,846
F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1958). See also In re
Gioloto, 530 F.2d 397, 399, 188 USPQ 645, 647 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants have advanced no objective evidence which
establishes that the automated steps of claims 29-39 produce
any unexpected result.
In conclusion, we reverse the examiner's rejection of
claims 25-28. However, for the reasons set forth in the
Examiner's Answer and those outlined above, we affirm the
examiner's rejection of claims 29-39.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN D. SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007