Appeal Number: 2006-2840
Application Number: 10/080,571
specification teaches that the results are exactly those expected, namely carrying exactly two data
points for each hole. Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Meadows in view of Ross.
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
• The rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Meadows in view of Ross is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROBERT E. NAPPI ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007