Appeal No. 1997-0636
Application No. 08/312,959
epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529,
220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of appealed
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.2
In summary, we have sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 5, but have not sustained the 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 1-4. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-5 is affirmed-in-part.
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
2The Board may rely on one reference alone in an
obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground
of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263,
266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150
USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007