Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
We further find the weight of the evidence shows that the Examiner’s
proffered combination of Veliadis, Hoyt, Gregory and McLuckey
reasonably teaches and/or suggests Appellants’ claimed invention in terms
of familiar elements that would have been combined by an artisan having
ordinary skill and common sense using known methods to achieve a
predictable result. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 16, 41, and 57 as being unpatentable over Veliadis and
Hoyt, and further in view of Gregory and McLuckey.
DECISION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20-
57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20-57 is affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013