Appeal 2007-3141
Application 10/696,894
1 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
2 erred in rejecting claims 77 and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
3 Hsieh and Pusic.
4 Claim 79 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hsieh, Pusic,
5 and Tateno.
6 The Appellants argue that claim 79 is patentable for the same reasons as claim
7 77. The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
8 erred in rejecting claim 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hsieh,
9 Pusic, and Tateno.
10 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
11 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
12 erred in rejecting claims 77, 79, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
13 over the prior art.
14 On this record, the Appellants are not entitled to a patent containing claims 77,
15 79, and 80.
16 DECISION
17 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
18 • The rejection of claims 77 and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
19 over Hsieh and Pusic is affirmed.
20 • The rejection of claim 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
21 Hsieh, Pusic, and Tateno is affirmed.
22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
23 may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013