Appeal 2007-1570
Application 10/646,720
25. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 25 as being unpatentable over Barada in view of Carraras and Nemeth
and also as being unpatentable over Barada in view of Zumbach and Nemeth
for the same reasons set forth in the Answer (see Answer 5-7).
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner’s rejection of all claims on appeal.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 19-25 and 39-52 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).
AFFIRMED
pgc
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20005
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013