Appeal 2007-2677
Application 10/622,229
arguments relating to the individual teachings of Darsillo, discussed above,
to be equally unpersuasive with respect to the rejection based on the
combined teachings of Darsillo, Bi, and Alexander.
F. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 10, and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Darsillo.
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 10, 13-21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Darsillo, Bi, and Alexander.
G. DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 10, and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Darsillo is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 10, 13-21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Darsillo, Bi, and Alexander 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).
AFFIRMED
PAUL A. LEIPOLD
PATENT LEGAL STAFF
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
343 STATE STREET
ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14650-2201
16
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: September 9, 2013