Appeal 2006-2523
Application 10/206,496
Therefore, this person would have used the prior art processes with the
metals specified in appealed claim 11.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined knowledge of methods known in the prior art described in the
Background of the Invention and the teachings of Adachi and Atarashi with
Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims
11, 12, and 14 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision 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) (2005).
AFFIRMED
sld
Carmen Santa Maria
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
23
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Last modified: September 9, 2013