Appeal No. 2005-2652
Application No. 10/066,990
Thus, based on the totality of record, including due
consideration of the appellants’ arguments, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4
through 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Gehlsen and Parsons.
With respect to claims 13, 14 and 23, the appellants do not
challenge the examiner’s position regarding obviousness of the
limitations recited therein. Compare the Answer, page 6, with
the Brief, pages 15-16. The appellants only rely upon the same
arguments addressed above. See the Brief, pages 15-16. Thus,
for the same reasons set forth above, we affirm the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Gehlsen, Parsons
and Bonk and claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Gehlsen, Parsons and Mochizuki.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting all of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
−10−
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007