Appeal No. 2005-0295
Application 10/151,586
We have not considered the objective evidence in the specification relied on by
appellants in the brief and reply brief because the embodiments of Abdel-Malik to which this
evidence applies anticipate claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, we have again evaluated all of the evidence of anticipation and of
obviousness found in Abdel-Malik with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
non-anticipation and nonobviousness, and based thereon we conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 37 would have been anticipated as a matter of fact
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
- 13 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007