Appeal No. 2004-1053
Application No. 09/772,409
examiner that the shape of any individual tab strip would have been
well within the ordinary skill in this art.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs
most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section
103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hatton.
B. The Rejection over Hatton in view of Hamerski
The examiner makes the same findings as discussed above
regarding Hatton but recognizes that Hatton does not teach a non-
foam adhesive (Answer, page 7).4 The examiner finds that Hamerski
teaches a hanging device for folded attachment using a non-foam
adhesive as an alternative to the foam adhesive of Hatton (id.).
From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have been
4The examiner also finds that, with regard to claims 16 and
29, Hatton does not teach that adhesive is located on the outer
tab surface and applies Hamerski for a teaching of this feature
(Answer, page 7). Appellant does not present any specific,
substantive arguments regarding claim 29 (see the Brief and Reply
Brief in their entirety). Accordingly, we do not consider this
claim separately. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007