Appeal 2007-1855
Application 10/815,650
on in the Brief and Reply Brief, and based thereon conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 5, 9, and 10 would
have been anticipated as a matter of fact under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and that
the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 10 would
have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See, e.g.,
Spada, 911 F.2d at 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d at 1657 n.3.
The Primary Examiner’s decision 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) (2006).
AFFIRMED
clj
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
21
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Last modified: September 9, 2013