Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 35 U.S.C. § 103 of representative claim 30, as Knutson discloses all that is
2 claimed.4
3 Accordingly, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 30 would
4 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of
5 Knutson, Watters, and Saxe.
6 As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 under 35
7 U.S.C. § 103.
8
9 CONCLUSIONS
10 We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
11 in rejecting claims 1-37.
12 Thus, claims 1-37 are not patentable.
13
14 DECISION
15 In view of the foregoing discussion, we affirm the Examiner’s
16 rejection of claims 1-37.
17 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
18 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
19
20
21 AFFIRMED
22
4 The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by the
Examiner in an obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground
of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA
1966).
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013