Appeal 2007-2198
Application 10/324,181
reasonably expected to arrive at a workable protrusion height for the
pyramidal column of Turi with an aspect ratio, as here claimed.
We note that Appellants have not furnished evidence to establish
criticality for the claimed aspect ratio range or otherwise argued, much less
substantiated with persuasive evidence, that the claimed forming apparatus
is attended by unexpected results.
For the reasons stated above, we shall affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1-13 over Turi in view of Shimalla.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 5-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curro taken with Ahr,
Shimalla, and Turi; to reject claims 2-4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Curro taken with Ahr, Shimalla, Turi, and Trokhan;
and to reject claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Turi in view of Shimalla is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION - WEST BLDG.
WINTON HILL BUSINESS CENTER - BOX 412
6250 CENTER HILL AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OH 45224
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013