Appeal No. 2006-1605
Application No. 09/470,741
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 15 and 27.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
15 and 27.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 12-21 and 23-34
under 35 USC 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
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
bilinear interpolation.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007