Appeal 2006-1969
Application 10/712,942
polyurethane cover material to achieve the advantageous results over the Surlyn ionomer
outer cover of Nesbitt, as taught by Isaac.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the Answer, we determine
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
reference evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most
heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27 and 28 under § 103(a) over Nesbitt in
view of Isaac.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 10-28 for obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-
42 of Sullivan is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10-12, 14-18, 21-22, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/ §
103(a) over Nesbitt is affirmed. The rejection of claims 13, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27 and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nesbitt in view of Isaac is also affirmed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007