Appeal No. 2004-2238
Application No. 09/878,743
Appellants further argue that “the claimed invention eliminates a
number of manufacturing steps, and in doing so reduces the cost
associated with fabricating casket lids.” (Reply Brief, p. 2). This argument is
not persuasive because the claims on appeal are directed to a casket lid
and not the process of manufacturing the lid.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, based
on the totality of the record, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs in favor of obviousness, giving due weight to Appellants
arguments. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of
claims 21-23 and 35 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by the
Appellants.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 21 to 23 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Edwards, Elder and Nishibori is
affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007