Ex Parte Elliott - Page 4



             Appeal 2007-1909                                                                                  
             Application 10/608,290                                                                            
                   The Appellant seeks our review of the rejection of claims 1-3 and 11-40                     
             under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bosco and Murray.                                   

                                                   ISSUE                                                       
                   The Examiner determined that the claimed apparatus would have been                          
             obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made                
             in view of the teachings Bosco and Murray (Answer 3-4).  In particular, the                       
             Examiner found that Bosco discloses an apparatus having an arm including “a                       
             second opposed end adapted for insertion in an aperture in the first edge flange of               
             the repair clamp” as recited in independent claims 1 and 21 (Answer 3).  The                      
             Appellant contends that the distal ends of claws 14 and 15 of Bosco are not                       
             adapted to be inserted in an aperture in the first edge flange of the repair clamp                
             (Appeal Br. 13).  The issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown that                   
             the Examiner erred in finding that Bosco discloses an apparatus having an arm                     
             including a second opposed end adapted for insertion in an aperture in a repair                   
             clamp.                                                                                            

                                            FINDINGS OF FACT                                                   
                   We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a                  
             preponderance of the evidence.  Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7                    
             USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard                   
             for proceedings before the Office).                                                               



                                                      4                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013