Appeal No. 2006-1729
Application No. 10/107,628
therefore 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 not suggested to the ordinarily skilled
artisan the invention as set forth in claims 1 through 21.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 21 under U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, 15, 22, 24 through
26 and 28 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have not
sustained the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 21 under
U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we affirm in part.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007