Appeal 2007-1268
Application 10/177,845
Although it may be possible for Ohkado to be disqualified as prior art
by 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) under the circumstances explained in MPEP
§§ 706.02(l)(1)-(l)(3), such circumstances do not exist in the application
presently before us on appeal. Therefore, Ohkado is available as prior art
with respect to the subject matter defined by the claims of the present
application.
In sum, Appellants have failed to meet the burden of overcoming the
prima facie showing of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1-21.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-21. The rejection of those
claims is affirmed.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-21 is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013