Appeal 2007-1485
Application 10/943,944
Specification 1). Appellants’ arguments have not addressed why the width
of the overlapping portion specified in the claims are separately patentable
and would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejections of claims 13-14 and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are 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
sld/ls
OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND,
MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013