Appeal 2006-3031
Application 10/299,734
Regarding the rejection of claims 7-8 on appeal where EP ‘475 was
applied as a tertiary reference, Appellants rely on their previously presented
arguments (Br. 13). Accordingly, we adopt our remarks and conclusion as
discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those reasons set forth in the
Answer and the Final Office action, we determine that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of
Appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the preponderance
of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning
of § 103(a). Therefore we affirm all rejections on appeal based on § 103(a).
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Huber and Tresser is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7-8 under § 103(a)
over Huber, Tresser and EP ‘475 is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1-8
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting
over claims 1-6, 11, and 12 of co-pending Application No. 300,030 is also
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007