Appeal No. 2005-2175
Application 10/104,383
that would then provide an objective basis for showing the invention, although apparently
obvious, was in law nonobvious. [Citations omitted.] For obviousness under § 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success. [Citations omitted.]”).
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 Pollock, Pitman,
Nelson and Haid and of Pollock, Pitman and Nelson with appellants’ countervailing evidence of
and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 67 and 68 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 16 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007