Appeal No. 2001-2509
Application No. 08/603,331
Concerning the examiner’s § 102 rejection over Loos,
appellant has not refuted the examiner’s factual finding and
analysis based upon interpreting the thickness of blade 18 to
define its front and back.
Turning to the examiner’s rejection under § 102 over Priore,
we are in complete agreement with the examiner that the “semi-
rigid” quality of Priore’s blade meets the claim requirement of
being “flexible”. Quite simply, we perceive no meaningful
distinction between materials which are semi-rigid and flexible.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the rejections based on
§ 103.
In the event of further prosecution of the subject matter at
bar, such as by way of a continuing application, we strongly
recommend that the examiner consider a rejection under § 103, as
well as § 102, over Ballantyne under the rationale that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
eliminate the reinforcing wire of Ballantyne along with its
attendant function. In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294, 192
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007