Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). In that
regard, Appellants have not shown that the claimed method yields an
unexpected result.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Dysart, and further in view of
Casper).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ricker, Puckett, Dysart, and Casper, and further in view of Dowling.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Casper.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Rusterholz et al..
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Loebig.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ricker, Puckett, Loebig, and further in view of Casper.
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 are separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Ricker and Puckett and other references as set forth in these statements
of the rejections. Appellants, however, provide no separate argument with
respect to any of these rejections but, rather, state that claims 3-5 and 8-10
stand or fall as part of the group that includes claims 1-2, 6-7, and 13-20
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013