Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291 Page 10
than for a hand window scraper. See the prior art described in
the first column of Kim, for example.
We note that appellant bases no arguments on the
presentation of evidence of unexpected results.
In light of the above and for reasons set forth in the
answer, we will sustain all of the examiner’s rejections on this
record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 7-9, 11,
15-19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Mason in view of Clements and Kim; to reject claims 2-5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view
of Clements, Kim, and Klima; to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements,
Kim, and Denker; to reject claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements,
Kim and Sinclair; to reject claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Clements, Kim and
Kahley; to reject claims 1-9, 11, 15-19, 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements and Kim; to reject claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007