Appeal 2007-2213
Application 10/355,433
different probe precursors at the same concentration are all within 2 cps of
one another.”
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 42 would have been obvious over Brennan and Eckstein in view of
Okamoto, which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 26-33 and 43-49 fall
with claim 42.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s position is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence of record. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1-33 and 42-
49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
Ssc
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT, DL429
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 7599
LOVELAND, CO 80537-0599
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: September 9, 2013