Appeal No. 2005-2607
Application No. 09/865,774
possesses the “cushioned” characteristic of the appealed claim 1
“cushioned member.” See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1463-64
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). Moreover, it is here appropriate to
reiterate the examiner’s well taken point that neither appealed
claim 1 nor the specification disclosure contains any
requirements as to the degree of this “cushioned” characteristic
or the thickness of this “cushioned member.”
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons well stated by
the examiner in her answer, it is our ultimate determination that
the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
which the appellants have failed to successfully rebut with
argument or evidence of nonobviousness. We hereby sustain,
therefore, the section 103 rejection of claims 1-10 as being
unpatentable over Ott in view of Silber. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007