Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
epitome of obviousness for anticipation by the prior art, Appellant’s showing
of commercial success and/or declaration of unobviousness with respect to
the Claim 1 subject matter cannot establish the patentability of the Claim 1
subject matter. We find that the unitary structure defined by Appellant’s
Claim 1 reasonably appears not to be novel.
Conclusion
Having considered all the evidence of record for and against the
patentability of Claims 1-8 of Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,118 and
90/6,254 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we affirm the appealed final rejections.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the examiner’s final rejections of Claims 1-8 of
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,118 and 90006,254 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 are affirmed; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the time for taking further action in this
appeal cannot be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a) (2006).
AFFIRMED
hlj
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013