Appeal No. 2006-3218
Application No. 10/233,845
AAPA teaches away from the combination with Yasumasa as discussed earlier in the
Brief. Since we did not find that argument persuasive above, we again, do not find it
persuasive here without further embellishment or identification of limitations in the
express limitations of the claims. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and
we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 16, 21, and 27 over the combination
of AAPA and Yasumasa.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejections of claims 16-19 and 21-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD/rwk
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007