Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,644
iii. The Rejection of Claim 7 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art, Tate, Oddo,
Lipford, and Carter
Alexander states that, if the subject matter of claim 4 is obvious
over the prior art, then the subject matter of claim 7 is likewise
obvious. As we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as
obvious over the prior art, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 7.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, it
is:
Ordered that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over admitted prior art taken in
view of Tate and further in view of Oddo is affirmed.
Further Ordered that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over admitted prior art
taken in view of Tate, Oddo and Lipford is affirmed.
Further Ordered that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over admitted prior art taken
in view of Tate, Oddo, Lipford and Carter is affirmed.
Further Ordered that no time period for taking any subsequent
action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013