Appeal No. 2003-0229
Application No. 09/768,885
rejection. Cf. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(“‘The factual inquiry whether to combine
references must be thorough and searching.’...It must be based
on objective evidence of record. This precedent has been
reinforced in myriad decisions, and cannot be dispensed with.”)
Issue C
Because the appellants rely on the same arguments for
appealed claims 29 through 32 as they do for appealed claim 16
(appeal brief, page 10), we affirm the rejection of these
appealed claims for the same reasons as stated in Issue A above.3
Summary of Decision
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of: (a) claims 13, 14, and 16 through 22 as
unpatentable over Pfenninger in view of Bloomer; and (b) claims
29 through 32 as unpatentable over Pfenninger in view of Bloomer
and Jones. We reverse, however, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of (c) claims 15 and 23 as unpatentable over
Pfenninger in view of Bloomer and JP ’268.
The decision of the examiner is therefore affirmed in part.
3 The appellants’ only comment on this rejection is as
follows: [W]hatever Jones teaching [sic] may be regarding
cement, this reference does nothing to cure the shortcomings of
the proposed Pfenninger/Bloomer combination.” (Appeal brief, p.
10; reply brief filed Jul. 29, 2002, paper 15, p. 1.) We note,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007