Appeal No. 2005-1557
Application 09/954,604
every limitation thereof arranged as required therein, without recourse to appellants’
specification. See generally, Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
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 Bredal and Elder and
the combined teachings of Bredal and Mathieu with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and
argument for nonobviousness with respect to each ground of rejection and conclude that the
claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 14 through 18, 20 through 25 and 28 through
43 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) (September 2004).
AFFIRMED
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007