Appeal 2007-0929
Application 10/000,774
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Because Appellant has failed to point out any error in the Examiner’s
position, we are affirming the § 103 rejection with respect to claim 21 and
also with respect to claims 22-36, which are argued merely based on the
same reasons discussed in relation with claim 21 (Br. 6-7). Therefore, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 21-36 over Doviak and
Robinson.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 21-36 is affirmed.
re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, it is well settled that “anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness.” In re McDaniel, 293 F3d 1379, 1385, 63 USPQ2d 1462,
1466-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fracalossi,
681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013