Appeal No. 2006-1096
Application No. 10/453,872
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
on 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, the examiner’s
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
N o t ime 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
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK/hh
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007