Appeal No. 2006-1403 Application No. 10/011,665 Perrino’s teachings do not undermine this combination, but rather support an obviousness conclusion therefor. In view of these findings, we hereby sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of all appealed claims as being obvious over Lochkovic in view of Teed. 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)(iv)(effective Sept. 13, 2004). AFFIRMED BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS AND Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) NANCY J. LINCK ) Administrative Patent Judge ) BRG/mpc/tf 11Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007