Appeal 2007-1685
Application 10/106,402
3. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
AAPA in view of Wenzhou and further in view of Lynch; and
4. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
AAPA in view of Meyer and further in view of Lynch.
ISSUES
I. The Examiner and Appellant disagree over whether Wenzhou is a
printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The issues for us to decide
are: Has the Examiner provided a reasonable basis to conclude that
Wenzhou was disseminated or otherwise made available to the public prior
to the date of invention? If yes, then has Appellant provided sufficient
evidence to overcome the Examiner’s showing?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer the first question in the
affirmative and the second question in the negative.
II. The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use smoking as the drying method in AAPA based
on Meyer’s teaching that smoking was an effective means for drying
rawhide. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection is improperly
based on hindsight reasoning. The issue for us to decide is: Has the
Examiner identified a teaching, motivation or suggestion in the prior art for
combining AAPA and Meyer in the manner claimed?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013