Appeal No. 2005-1926
Application No. 10/188,723
above-stated teachings of Todd, a reasonable expectation of
success is founded in the prior art. Hence, the examiner has
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. Dow Chem., 837
F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531 (citing Burlington Indus. v.
Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2-8, 10-12, and 15-17 as being
obvious over Todd.
II. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-8, 10-12, and
15-17 as being obvious over Todd 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 Sept. 13, 2003; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat., Office 21 (Sept. 7,
2004)).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007