Appeal No. 2004-1087
Application No. 09/223,472
and 18. We also note that on pages 11-12 of the brief, the
appellants provide the same arguments in this rejection that
appellants provided in the anticipation rejection over Eidschun.
Hence, for the same reasons, we are not convinced by appellants’
arguments. We therefore affirm this rejection also.
VI. Conclusion
Each of the rejections 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
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BAP/sld
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007