Appeal No. 2004-1131
Application 09/562,632
significance thereof. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d 1281,
1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Kubitza, Hatano and
Tsuno with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 7 would have
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007