Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
Hence, the teachings of Dudley considered in conjunction
with the unchallenged common knowledge noted by the examiner
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in claim 16 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 16.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 16 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007