Appeal 2006-3003
Application 10/390,444
Mattesky, and Kump in view of Mattesky. We therefore conclude that
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in determining it
would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Willius, to modify the
display hook of Mattesky, Brozak in view of Mattesky, or Kump in view of
Mattesky, to provide a fluoropolymer coating. All of the rejections are
sustained.
SUMMARY
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
vsh
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013