Appeal 2007-1895
Application 10/719,489
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 Bilgrien and Boudreau with Appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 16
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
cam
McKellar IP Law, PPLC
784 South Poseyville Road
Midland, MI 48640
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: September 9, 2013