Appeal No. 2004-1312 Page 7
Application No. 08/710,554
After reviewing the teachings of Nason and Doi, we find no suggestion, teaching
or motivation therein for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to have modified Nason to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Specifically, it is
our opinion that Doi would not have made it obvious to the skilled artisan to have
modified Nason's sheet 20 to include a flat adhesive depression containing an adhesive
means to provide an adhesive surface substantially flush with the contact surface. As
such, the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 57
to 60, 62 and 64 to 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view
of Doi is reversed.
Rejections 3 and 4
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nason in view of Doi and Yeomans or the rejection of claim 70 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Doi and Inland [illegible]
Products Company. We have reviewed the references to Yeomans and Inland [illegible]
Products Company but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiency of Nason
and Doi discussed in rejection 2 above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007