Appeal 2007-1603
Application 10/036,356
Obviousness
With respect to the dependent claim 22, Appellants argue that the
combination of Faber and Tiedemann, Jr. would not render the subject
matter of claim 22 prima facie obvious. We do not find this to be a specific
argument for patentability, and we will sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 22.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 17-21, 23-27,
29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 41, and 43-50 under 35 U.S.C. §102, and we have
sustained the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
tdl/ce
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20037-3213
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013