Appeal 2007-2921
Application 09/951,452
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
failed to establish that Park’s disclosure anticipates claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10,
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6,
9, 10, and 13.
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
ce/clj
OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA VA 22314
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013