Appeal 2007-1900
Application 10/605,858
that the Examiner failed to provide the level of evidence required to support
the conclusion of obvious for these claims.
III. CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 21-25, 28, 30, 31 and
33 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We further sustain the rejection
of claims 7, 10, and 29 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 13-20, 26, and 32 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
IV. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
tf/ls
Hartman and Hartman, P.C.
552 East 700 North
Vaiparaiso, IN 46383
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013