Appeal 2007-1396
Application 10/375,235
mere lawyers’ arguments unsupported by factual evidence are insufficient to
establish unexpected results.” (citations omitted)).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Baeck and Hermant and of Perkins and Baeck with
Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness,
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 2,
4, 5, 7, 8, 11 through 18, and 20 would have been obvious as a matter of law
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to the ground of rejection advanced by the Examiner but
not acknowledged by Appellants as a ground to be reviewed and not argued,
see 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iii), (vi), and (vii) (2005), we summarily affirm
the ground of rejection. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02
(8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).
The Primary Examiner’s decision 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) (2007).
AFFIRMED
clj
UNILEVER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
700 SYLVAN AVENUE
BLDG C2 SOUTH
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ 07632-3100
16
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: September 9, 2013