Appeal No. 2006-1550
Application No. 10/044,401
art the invention as set forth in claims 2, 4, 5, 10 and 14. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 10 and 14.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have also sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, we affirm.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JRH/rwk
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007