Appeal 2007-0620
Application 10/323,626
Sawada and Wanka with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and
argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 39 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 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED
sld/ls
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
16
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: September 9, 2013