Appeal No. 2004-1914
Application No. 09/739,288
obviousness. See, e.g., Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
The evidence provided by the examiner thus supports the decision in rejecting
the claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 14-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Boyd, and the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-20 is affirmed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007