Appeal 2007-3373
Application 10/477,363
1 We have considered Ciba’s remaining arguments and find none that
2 warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4-8 and 10-11.
3 Cf. Hartman v. Nicholson, 483 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
4
5 G. Conclusions of law
6 Ciba has not sustained its burden on appeal of showing that the
7 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4-8 and 10-11 on appeal as being
8 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Berg.
9 Ciba has sustained its burden on appeal of showing that the Examiner
10 erred in rejecting claim 9 on appeal as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
11 § 102(b) over Berg.
12 On the record before us, Ciba is not entitled to a patent containing
13 claims 2, 4-8 and 10-11.
14
15 H. Decision
16 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting
17 claims 2, 4-8 and 10-11 over the prior art is affirmed.
18 FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner
19 rejecting claim 9 over the prior art is reversed.
20 FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any
21 subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under
22 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013