Appeal No. 2004-1235
Application No. 09/845,643
However, the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 9
and 10 is on different footing. Claims 9 and 10 include the
limitations of claims 6 and 7 since they are dependent on claims
6 and 7. However, Kennedy does not remedy the deficiencies
indicated supra.
As such, the combined teachings of Giglio and Kennedy would
not have rendered the subject matter of claims 9 and 10 obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Giglio and Buckman. The disclosure of Giglio is discussed above.
Giglio does not mention that “the recess has a depth less than
the thickness of the ball marker so that the ball marker
protrudes slightly past the outer portion surface” as required by
claim 14.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the
disclosure of Buckman. See the final Office action dated ,
page 3. The examiner finds, and the appellant does not dispute,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007