Appeal 2007-0833
Application 10/280,254
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
has failed to establish that Kikinis anticipates claims 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 and
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Additionally, Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner has failed to establish that the combination of Kikinis with Ha
or Aguilar renders 1 through 4, 6 through 13, 15 through 19, 22, 24, 27 and
29 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through
4, 6 through 13 and 15 through 29.
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).
AFFIRMED
KIS
TIMOTHY W. MARKISON
P.O. BOX 160727
AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013