Appeal No. 2004-0034
Application No. 09/226,467
1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969); In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968); In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194,
138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963).
As to separately argued claim 13, we agree with the
examiner’s analysis that Powers teaches the formation of a
channel by inserting a punch into the foam body. (See Figures
2-5.)
As to separately argued claim 16, we again find ourselves
in complete agreement with the examiner’s findings and
conclusions. (Answer, page 4.) Contrary to the appellant’s
apparent belief (reply brief, page 5), the recitation
“projecting of a detectable insert into a foam body at a
predetermined trajectory and speed” reads on mere automated or
manual insertion of a detectable insert into a foam body. In
other words, the claim recitation is not limited in scope to the
preferred embodiment described in the specification at page 4
where a detectable insert is projected into the foam body by a
source of energy (e.g., compressed air).
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
appealed claims 1 through 13 and 16 through 23 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Powers and Leonard.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007