Appeal No. 2003-1804
Application No. 09/896,209
Therefore, improved attentiveness would not have been a
“surprising beneficial result” to a person having ordinary skill
in light of the prior art teaching.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the examiner’s final
rejections of Claims 1-33 of Application No. 09/896,209 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined prior art. We need
not reach the rejections of appellant’s claims over Birkmayer I
alone.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136 (a).
AFFIRMED
FRED E. McKELVEY )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
RICHARD E. SCHAFER ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
TEDDY S. GRON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007