Appeal No. 2005-1078
Application 09/681,303
time. Here, appellant has simply not established that claim 1 patentably distinguishes over the
teachings of Liprie ‘781 alone or taken with Narciso.
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 Liprie ‘781, Narciso
and Ishibe with appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 6, 9 through 15,
17 through 25 and 27 through 31 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
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007