Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 1
based on Ley in combination with either Hojeibane or Dinh . Further, as
Appellant did not separately argue any additional limitations in the
remaining claims, we affirm the rejections of these claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and
13, including that of claims 3, 6, and 10 based on Lay in combination with
either Hojeibane or Dinh in view of Ndondo-Lay. Finally, we affirm the
provisional double patenting rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13 over
claims 1-3 of Das ‘318.
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) (2006).
AFFIRMED
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013