Appeal No. 1996-4119
Application No. 08/261,406
Bollen in view of Ng and Harris, we are constrained to reach the conclusion that the
examiner met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the
rejection of claims 9-16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bollen in view of Ng and Harris as applied to claims19 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 1720 and
2221 and further in view of Neurath and Yip. Similarly, we are also constrained to
reach the conclusion that the examiner met her burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness for the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng, Harris, Neurath and Yip as applied to claims
9-16, 18 and 19, and further in view of Bischoff.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 9-16, 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng and Harris
as applied to claims22 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 1723 and 2224 and further in view of Neurath and
Yip. We also affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng, Harris, Neurath
and Yip as applied to claims 9-16, 18 and 19, and further in view of Bischoff.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
19 See supra, n.8.
20 See supra, n.1.
21 See supra, n.10.
22 See supra, n.8.
23 See supra, n.1.
24 See supra, n.10.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007