Appeal No. 2002-1099 9
Application No. 09/208,119
claim 25. The examiner’s position (answer, page 5) that it would have been obvious to
provide a shorter panel for the hinge panel of Hagiwara “to save material cost,” and/or to
extend the flange of Hagiwara to the edge of the base “since a change in size is generally
recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art” is not well taken for the
reasons explained above. Accordingly, rejection (3) also cannot be sustained.
Since the examiner has failed to established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to any of the appealed claims, it is not necessary for us to consider appellants’
evidence of nonobviousness (i.e., the Marsilio declaration).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007