Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
Appellant asserts that “there is nothing in Spector to suggest a
dimension of 4 to 10 millimeters for a vent. . .” (Br. 9). We find Appellant’s
argument insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s finding that “absent a showing
of unexpected results the claimed 4mm to 10mm size would have been
obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan depending on the ease with which
one wished to allow air to fill the ball” (Answer 4).
For the foregoing reasons we find that the Examiner set forth a prima
facie case that claim 2 is unpatentable over Spector, which Appellant has not
rebutted. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spector. Claims 5, 9, 12, and 14 fall
together with claim 2.
SPECTOR AND COUGHLAN
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Spector and Coughlan. Claims 16-18 are grouped
together (Supplemental Br. 7). Therefore, we limit our discussion to
representative claim 16. Claims 17 and 18 will stand or fall together with
claim 16. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Spector is relied upon as set forth above. The Examiner finds that
Spector “discloses the claimed device with the exception of the target
assembly” (Answer 4). The Examiner relies on Coughlan to make up for
this deficiency. The Examiner finds that Coughlan teaches that it was
known in the art to use target assemblies with projectiles such as those
taught by Spector (id.). Based on this evidence, the Examiner finds “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used . . .
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013