Appeal No. 2001-0220
Application No. 09/244,044
not on the appellant to investigate the practical art and provide
information thereon to the PTO" (page 12 of principal brief,
first paragraph). However, appellant must advance more than a
mere bald challenge, and nothing more, of the validity of the
examiner's finding. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728, 169 USPQ 231,
234, (CCPA 1971). As stated by the court in Boon, "[w]e feel it
to be perfectly consistent with the principles governing
procedural due process to require that a challenge to judicial
notice by the board contain adequate information or argument so
that on its face it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the
circumstances justifying the judicial notice." Boon, 439 F.2d at
728, 169 USPQ at 234. In the present case, appellant has failed
to present any argument which casts such a reasonable doubt on
the examiner's finding. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection under § 103 of claim 32. See also In re
Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 176 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1973).
We will also sustain the examiner's § 102 rejection over
Schmidt of claims 14 and 25-29 which are directed to a kit
comprising an impact pad and a dam having at least one hole
therein.1 In our view, the kit claims, comprising only the
1 Appellant states at page 4 of the principal brief that
claims 14 and 29 stand or fall together, as do claims 25, 27
and 28.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007