Appeal No. 2006-1834
Application No. 09/852,253
Accordingly, since the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellant, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 22, 26, and 27 based on the combination of Petek
and Sloane.2
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of all of
the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 8,
20-23, and 25-27 is affirmed.
2 The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by the Examiner in an
obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush,
296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455,
458, n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007