Appeal No. 2005-1140
Application 10/247,069
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Pazos ‘571 alone and as combined with Gupta,
with respect to appealed claim 6, and with Cline, with respect to appealed claim 7, 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.
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 )
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007