Appeal 2007-2131
Application 10/401,331
the instant invention to be notoriously well known in the art, as taught by
Ishii and Culbert and discussed above.
For the above reasons, we conclude the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness which has not been overcome by any
convincing arguments from Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 16 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view
of Culbert is sustained.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to claims 1-15 and 17-26 in this group on the basis of the
selected claim alone (independent claim 16). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection claims 1-15 and 17-26 as being unpatentable over Ishii
in view of Culbert for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 16.
DECISION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-26. Therefore, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 1-26 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).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013