Appeal No. 2005-2458 6
Application No. 10/003,900
no such evidence. We particularly note that Appellants very clearly indicate that the
Wnuk Declaration is not relied upon to show unexpected results (Rely Brief, p. 3).
With regard to claims 3-6, Appellants argue that “[t]he prior art does not teach a
storage wrap material having the limitations presented.” (Brief, p. 7). This argument
does not address the specific findings of the Examiner with regard to the limitations of
these claims (Answer, pp. 4-5) and, therefore, we do not find these arguments
persuasive.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 1-20, which has not been
sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007