Appeal No. 1999-0221
Application No. 08/766,847
closest prior art is the disc brake of Gumkowski and not the
method of attaching applique to a dial, which is disclosed by
Feller.
Notwithstanding the above, rather than remand the
application to the examiner to apply the evidence to
Gumkowski, in the interest of judicial economy and in the
light of the fact that the appellant has presented extensive
arguments concerning the evidence as it might so apply, we
have considered this issue on the basis of the record before
us. To insure that the appellant is given the opportunity to
comment upon the positions we have set forth below, we
designate our affirmance of the standing rejections as new
grounds of rejection under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Our understanding of the appellant’s position with regard
to the evidence supplied in the two declarations is that it
purports to establish that the invention provides unexpected
results when compared to the brake shoe attachment means of
Gumkowski (Brief, page 14, line 7; page 19, line 6). It is
the examiner’s contention that the evidence cannot be accorded
sufficient weight to overcome the prima facie case of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007