Appeal 2007-3426
Application 10/400,954
at 1255-256, 195 USPQ at 433-34; cf., e.g., Lindner, 457 F.2d at 508, 173
USPQ at 358.
We note again here that Appellants have not argued the ground of
rejection under § 103(a) involving the combined teachings of LaFollette and
Nathan with specificity. Indeed, it is thus apparent that a discussion of
Nathan is not necessary to our decision.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of anticipation found in LaFollette
with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for non-
anticipation and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 1, 3, and 9 through 14 would have been anticipated as a
matter of fact under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2002).
Further, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before
us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in LaFollette alone
and as combined with Nathan with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of
and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 2 and 4 through 8 would have been
obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013