Appeal No. 2005-2304
Application No. 10/127,555
evidence of unobviousness.” In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397,
187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975); In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950,
186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 537,
152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
For the above reasons we conclude that the appellants’
claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art over Ryoji, and that the appellants
have not effectively rebutted the prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO/rwk
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007