Appeal 2007-0615
Application 10/204,304
Appellant regarding the experiments conducted on the samples of Figures 2
and 4 make a valid and conclusive comparison of the claimed invention and
the prior art (i.e., Lakowicz, Jolson and Macur) impossible.
For the above reasons, Appellant has not convinced us that
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness is in error. Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 2 over Lakowicz in
view of Jolson or Macur.
DECISION
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 2 over
Lakowicz in view of Jolson or Macur.
The 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)(2006).
AFFIRMED
sld/ls
Young and Thompson
745 South 23rd Street
2nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013