Appeal No. 2005-1328
Application No. 09/734,792
locating the perforations and openings, it is well settled that
it is a matter of obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
eliminate or modify a feature of the prior art along with its
attendant advantage. In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294, 192
USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1976); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188
USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007