Appeal No. 2004-0189 Page 3
Application No. 09/782,782
Claims 1 to 16 and 18 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,248,0271 to Hayashi et al. (Hayashi).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 9, mailed April 16, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 8, filed February 5, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 10, filed June 16, 2003) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the Hayashi patent, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-10) that the limitation that the "outer cover
layer has a hardness of greater than about 56 Shore D" is not taught or suggested by
Hayashi since that patent discloses an outer cover having a Shore D hardness in the
range of 35-53. In response to this argument in the answer (pp. 4-9), the examiner has
1 Issued June 19, 2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007