1 F. Conclusions of law
2 Appellants have sustained their burden on appeal of showing that the
3 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22 as being anticipated
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Mahendran.
5 Appellants have not sustained their burden on appeal of showing that
6 the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22 as being
7 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Mahendran
8 and Brun.
9 On the record before us, Appellants are not entitled to a patent
10 containing claims 1, 8-9, 17 or 22.
11 G. Decision
12 Upon consideration of the appeal, it is
13 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 8-9,
14 17 and 22 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Mahendran is
15 reversed.
16 FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting
17 claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mahendran is affirmed.
18 FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as to cancelled
19 claims 2-7, 10-16, 18-21 and 23-37.
20 FURTHER ORDERED that the time for taking further action is not
21 extendable under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.136(a) (2006).
22 AFFIRMED
23
24
25
26
27
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013