Appeal 2007-2810
Application 09/894,501
E. CONCLUSION OF LAW
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s reasoning. Accordingly, the Examiner has supported a legal
determination of anticipation. Accordingly, on the record before us, claim 1 is
unpatentable under §102(b).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 1 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
vsh
JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL
2290 S. JONES BLVD. #100
LAS VEGAS NV 89146
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013