Appeal 2007-1549
Application 10/632,017
art because it is no more than “the simple substitution of one known element
for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior
art ready for the improvement.” Id. Therefore, the substitution appears to be
the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense and
thus does not patentably distinguish claims 30 and 31 from Yao.
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5, 9-10, 12, 14, 17,
20, 23 and 29-31 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
vsh
BRIAN M. DUNCAN
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013