Appeal 2007-3216
Application 10/271,433
commensurate with the level of skill in the art. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claim 41. Separate reasons for the patentability of claims 42 and
43 were not provided; consequently, claim 42 and 43 fall with claim 41.
CONCLUSION
Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in determining that claims 1, 4, 5, and 41-43 are
obvious over Brown-Skrobot in view of Mitra.
TIME PERIOD
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) (2006).
AFFIRMED
lbg
SENNIGER POWERS
ONE METROPOLITAN SQUARE
16TH FLOOR
ST LOUIS MO 63102
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013