Appeal No. 2001-0207
Application No. 09/151,003
necessary to permit the heat fusible part to be attached
thereto.
Hence, the combined teachings of Smith and Cross fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 7. Therefore, we 1
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1 and 7, and dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12, as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cross.
As neither Choi nor Miller cures the foregoing flaws in
the basic Smith-Cross combination, we also shall not sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2 and 8
as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cross and Choi,
and of claims 4 and 10 as being unpatentable over Smith in
view of Cross and Miller.
1As a result, it is not necessary to delve into the
merits of the objective evidence of non-obviousness made of
record by the appellants.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007