Appeal No. 2003-0348
Application 09/567,145
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claims 17, 25 and 37, the
examiner cites Oehrlein as teaching a guitar in which two layers
of wood are used in which the grains of the layers run in
substantially perpendicular directions. The examiner notes that
Oehrlein does not teach no more than two layers for the sound
board. The examiner cites Besnainou as teaching a sound board
using at least two superposed sheets of crossed and directed long
fibers and Sloane as teaching using no more than two layers for
the sound board of a guitar. The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to modify Oehrlein in view of
Besnainou and Sloane [answer, page 5].
With respect to independent claim 17, appellant argues
that Oehrlein is directed to the construction of the bottom board
of a guitar and not to the sound board as claimed. Appellant
argues that the sound board and bottom board of a guitar have
entirely different functions, and the examiner has not identified
any motivation for using the bottom board teachings of Oehrlein
for the sound board [brief, pages 6-10].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007