Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Bridges and in Kielpikowski with Appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1, 3 through 10,
12 through 16, 18 through 29, 31, and 32 would have been obvious as a
matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary 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).
AFFIRMED
cam
Pauley Petersen & Erickson
2800 West Higgins Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60169
20
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Last modified: September 9, 2013