Appeal No. 2006-1660
Application No. 10/609,087
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, pertaining to the claimed elimination of the isolation
step or the process parameters of pressure, temperature, etc.
Accordingly, the prima facie case of obviousness established by
the examiner stands unrebutted.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims 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 )
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007