Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
information in the Wanthal document. Indeed, the appellants have
not proffered any evidence that access to the Wanthal document
was ever denied to the interested public.
Thus, for the reasons set forth in the Answer, the
Supplemental Answer and above, it is our judgment that the
information in the Wanthal document was publicly accessible, thus
triggering the “printed publication” bar under section 102(b) and
an invention “known ... by others” under section 102(a). Having
determined that Wanthal is available as “prior art” within the
meaning of sections 102(b) and 102(a), we adopt the examiner’s
uncontested obviousness determination as our own. In other
words, we concur with the examiner that Wanthal and Campbell
would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 1, 2, 4,
6, 16 and 17 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 16 and 17 under section 103(a).
REJECTION 2)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claim 3 under section 103(a), the examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Wanthal, Campbell, and at least Childress and/or
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007