Appeal No. 2005-1380
Application No. 09/944,314
(7) claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Widmer in view of Hoerkens (id.).
Based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of the opposing arguments in the Brief, Reply
Brief, and the Answer, we affirm all rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer and those
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejections based on Section 102
With respect to the subject matter of claim 1 on appeal, the
examiner finds that (1) the admitted prior art (specification,
page 1, ll. 4-10) discloses imparting a smooth texture to the
outer surface of a hearing instrument shell; (2) Walter, Bowser,
Hoerkens, Yoest and Widmer each discloses imparting a non-smooth
texture to the outer surface of a hearing instrument shell
(Office action dated May 18, 2004, pages 2-3). The examiner
states that “[b]oth the appellant’s [sic, appellants’] arguments
and the case itself revolve around one main issue: The meaning of
Brief in their entirety), we consider the examiner’s error
harmless.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007