Appeal No. 2006-1158
Application No. 10/052,733
Based on the above-listed body of decisional precedent, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness which the appellants have failed to successfully
rebut with argument or evidence of nonobviousness. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1444-45, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). We hereby sustain, therefore, the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Vayssie.
The decision of the examiner 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 Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007