Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 11
appellant that independent claims 1, 22, and misnumbered
independent claim 30 are not anticipated by Robertson because we
find no teaching in Robertson, and none has been brought to our
attention by the examiner, that pin receptacles 104, 105 of
Robertson are removable or can be inserted or removed without
damaging the wall. We therefore find that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claims
1-11, 13-32, and misnumbered claims 30-33. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-11, 13-32, and misnumbered claims 30-33
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Frensch.
We reverse the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Frensch does not make up for the deficiencies of Robertson.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
13-32 and misnumbered claims 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph is affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-12 and misnumbered claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed. The decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1-11, 13-32, and misnumbered claims 30-33 under 35
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007