Appeal No. 2004-0187 Page 8
Application No. 09/745,098
35 U.S.C. § 103, and the appellants have not explained why the selection of such a
blank size would not have been obvious to the artisan, especially in view of the range of
skirt diameters disclosed by Leenaards. The examiner’s position thus is uncontroverted
on the record.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Leenaards and
Myer establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter
recited in claim 14, which has not been persuasively rebutted by the appellants. The
rejection of claim 14 is sustained. Moreover, since the appellants have elected to group
dependent claims 15 and 16 with claim 14 (Amended Brief, page 3), the rejection of
claims 15 and 16 also is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Leenaards is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
Leenaards in view of Ferngren is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
Leenaards in view of Myer is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007