Appeal No. 2006-2810 Page 15
Application No. 10/618,111
do not view the examiner’s statement to be a concession that Appellant is correct in
their position.
Stackhouse
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith in
view of Cook as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-19, and further in view of Stackhouse5.
Appellant did not separately address this rejection, but conceded that the claims
stands or falls together with claims 1-9 and 11-19. Brief, page 8. Thus, this rejection
falls with claims 1-9 and 11-19.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1-19 as obvious over prior art is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Richard M. Lebovitz )
Administrative Patent Judge )
RMJ/jlb
5 Stackhouse et al. (Stackhouse), U.S. Pat. No. 4,427,740, issued Jan. 24, 1984
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007