Appeal 2007-1888
Application 10/258,067
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.”); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 567-68, 152 USPQ 618, 619 (CCPA
1967) (express suggestion to interchange methods which achieve the same
or similar results is not necessary to establish obviousness).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Nguyen and Jones with Appellants’ countervailing
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 3 through 22 would have
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
sld/ls
Sughrue Mion, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013