Appeal 2007-1397
Application 10/375,238
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 1,
4, 5, and 9 through 20 through would have been obvious as a matter of law
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to the grounds of rejection advanced by the Examiner but
not acknowledged by Appellants as grounds to be reviewed and not argued,
see 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iii), (vi), and (vii) (2005), we summarily affirm
these grounds 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