Appeal 2007-1568
Application 09/900,375
fails to render the cited claims unpatentable. In our view, such allegations
do not rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness against the
cited claims. We therefore affirm this rejection.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
failed to establish that Hepp renders claims 1, 5, and 8 unpatentable over
Hepp. Similarly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner failed to
establish that claims 2 through 4, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are unpatentable over the
combination of Hepp and Nixon under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Additionally,
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner failed to establish that claims 9
through 11are unpatentable over the combination of Hepp and
Narayanaswami under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1
through 13.
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).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013