Appeal 2007-2371
Application 10/426,654
demonstrate that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 3 is obvious
over Anselem and Roth. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 3. Claims 4, 5, 7, and 9 fall with claim 3 because they
were not argued separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Anselem. We also affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Anselem and Roth.
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
STITES & HARBISON PLLC
1199 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET
SUITE 900
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: September 9, 2013