Appeal No. 2001-0557 Page 9
Application 09/376,548
rejection is not based upon “actual evidence,” we point out that the suggestion provided by
Schlaupitz is clearly articulated in the specification which, of course, is evidence of the
state of the art at the time of the appellant’s invention. Moreover, we take note of the fact
that Marks discloses flanges (unnumbered) extending outwardly around the edges of each
of the body elements and integral therewith, which inherently would function as finger
holds.
Thus, we conclude that the teachings of Marks and Schlaupitz establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 11, and we will sustain
this rejection. The patentability of dependent claims 12, 14 and 16 has not separately
been argued before the Board, and therefore the rejection of these claims also is
sustained.
(4)
Dependent claim 15 adds to independent claim 11, through claims 12 and 14, the
requirement that “the second body element is integrally formed with a relatively thinner
window area bounded by a relatively thicker body area.” The claim stands rejected on the
basis of the same references applied against claim 1, taken further with Schlaupitz. When
we evaluated the patentability of claim 1, we decided that this construction of the window
area was not rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Marks, Haarlander and
Cavan. Consideration of Schlaupitz does not alter this conclusion.
The rejection of claim 15 is not sustained on the basis of the same reasoning we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007