Appeal 2006-1708
Application 10/186,253
1 CONCLUSION OF LAW
2 On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
3 in holding that Beamer as modified by Haussmann provides adequate reason to
4 combine the teachings of Beamer and Haussmann, fails to establish a reasonable
5 expectation of success, or fails to teach or suggest each and every claim limitation
6 of claim 1. The Appellants have also failed to set forth sufficient objective
7 evidence in order to rebut the Examiner’s case of obviousness. Finally, Appellants
8 have not shown that Yamamoto fails to anticipate a V-shaped fin wall as recited in
9 claim 2.
10
11 DECISION
12 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as being unpatentable
13 over Beamer in view of Haussmann is affirmed. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
14 102(b) of claim 2 as being anticipated Yamamoto is affirmed.
15 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
16 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
17 AFFIRMED
18
19
20
21
22
23 hh
24
25 DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
25 M/C 480-410-202
26
27 PO BOX 5052
28 TROY, MI 48007
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: September 9, 2013