Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724
with the Examiner that DE ‘448 simply provides additional evidence that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to tap the fluid
pressure of Wallestad’s system in any of a number of locations “dependent
upon such well[-]known factors as specific vehicle undercarriage design
limitations or spatial constraints etc.” (Answer 5, first para.).
As noted above, Appellant does not provide different arguments
against the § 103 rejections citing Sorum and Stanfield.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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
clj
Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P.
1300 19th Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013