Appeal No. 2006-0158
Application No. 10/668,832
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CATHERINE TIMM ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:hh
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007