Appeal No. 2000-0266
Application No. 08/762,973
Appellant’s argument (brief, page 6) that the paper
protector disclosed by Vigal is not “flexible” is without merit
since Vigal discloses that the paper is folded over onto itself
during its manufacture (column 2, lines 20 through 26). No
degree of flexibility is set forth in claims 1, 2 and 13 through
15.
Appellant’s arguments (brief, page 14; reply brief, page 3)
concerning noise are equally without merit because the claims on
appeal are silent as to noise.
Appellant’s arguments throughout the briefs concerning the
individual shortcomings in each of the applied references are
without merit because the examiner has relied on the combined
teachings of the references to demonstrate the obviousness of the
invention set forth in claims 1, 2 and 13 through 15.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2 and 13
through 15 is sustained because the examiner did not have to
resort to impermissible hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness
of these claims (brief, page 10; reply brief, pages 4 through 7).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 through 12 and
16 through 20 is reversed because the examiner has not come to
grips with the fact that the applied references neither teach nor
would have suggested the claimed subject matter.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007