Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
used . . . [Coughlan’s target assembly] with Mason’s ball . . .” (id.). We find
no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant asserts that “[c]laims 16-18 depend from [c]laim 4, which
stands rejected only as being anticipated by the Conley reference.
Therefore, as the Conley reference does not anticipate [c]laim 4, as
explained above, dependent [c]laims 16-18 are allowable” (Br. 9).
Appellant’s assertion is incorrect, and in any event does not identify any
deficiency in the combination of Mason and Coughlan. Therefore, we
summarily affirm the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Mason and Coughlan. Claims 17 and
18 fall together with claim 16.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm all rejections of record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
dm
KENNEDY COVINGTON LOBDELL & HICKMAN, LLP
214 N. TRYON STREET
HEARST TOWER, 47TH FLOOR
CHARLOTTE NC 28202
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013