Appeal 2007-2813
Application 10/685,744
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 1 would have been obvious over Edwards in view of VanTassel,
which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2-4 and 6-15 fall with claim 1.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Edwards in view of VanTassel and Rangaswamy, and claim 16 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Edwards in view of
VanTassel and Kirsch. The Examiner relies on Edwards and VanTassel as
discussed above, and relies on Rangaswamy and Kirsch for the limitations of
claims 5 and 16, respectively. (Answer 9-11.)
Appellants argue that Rangaswamy and Kirsch do not “supplement
the failed teachings of Edwards and VanTassel” (Br. 9).
However, we have concluded that claims 1-4 and 6-15 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Edwards in view of VanTassel. Thus,
we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. We therefore affirm the
rejections of claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s position is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence of record. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1-16 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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013