Appeal No. 2005-2178
Application 09/969,882
thereof arranged as required therein, without recourse to appellant’s specification. See, e.g.,
Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531; 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 Geraldson, Tisdale and
Whisenant with appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 14, 17, 22 and 27 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
- 17 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007