Appeal No. 2004-0453
Application No. 09/828,019
every element of independent claim 19, from which claim 21 depends, as discussed
above” (Brief, page 6). This argument is unpersuasive since, as previously explained,
the reference evidence set forth by the examiner (i.e., the Lee and Mendham references)
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to appealed independent claim
19. We will also sustain, therefore, the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claim 21 as
being unpatentable over Lee in view of Mendham and further in view of Rasch.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI)
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG/dpv
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007