Appeal 2006-2232
Application 10/242,188
Examiner’s reliance on inherency was in the alternative and therefore was
not the only basis for the Examiner’s obviousness determination. The
Appellant’s contentions have not responded to this alternative reasoning.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8, 15, 17,
20, 23, 33 and 48.
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rushing in view of
Wingate and of claim 42 as being unpatentable over Rushing in view of
Kovtun and Wingate because the Appellants rely on the arguments made
above.
CONCLUSION/ORDER
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) (2006).
AFFIRMED
hh
WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013