Appeal No. 2004-1142
Application No. 09/892,001
Appellant presents a similar argument with respect to the
“paint roller handle assembly,” namely that Wakat does not
disclose a single core that rotates at the same rate for each
roller cage (Brief, page 13). Regarding this argument, we adopt
our comments from above. Appellant further argues that the
assembly of Wakat has two separate cages upon which the roller
covers are press fitted while appellant’s assembly is made from a
“conventional” paint roller handle assembly. This argument is
not well taken since appellant has not pointed out how the paint
roller handle assembly as claimed differs from the handle
assembly disclosed by Wakat (see the Answer, page 14). Arguing
limitations not found in the claims on appeal is not persuasive.
See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).
For the forgoing reasons and those stated 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007