Appeal No. 2006-2936
Application No. 10/013,714
consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set
forth in claims 5, 11, 12, 17, 22, 23, 31, 36 through 39, 41
through 43, 49, 54 through 57, and 59 through 61. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 11, 12, 17,
22, 23, 31, 36 through 39, 41 through 43, 49, 54 through 57, and
59 through 61.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10,
13 through 16, 18 through 21, 24 through 30, 32 through 35, 40,
44 through 48, 50 through 53, 58, 62 and 63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. We have also sustained the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 5, 11, 12, 17, 22, 23, 31, 36 through 39, 41 through 43,
49, 54 through 57, and 59 through 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, we affirm.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007