Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
that will apply the sodium silicate to the tips of the flutes in order to obtain
the advantages expressly articulated in Wallick.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 that has not been
sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
With regard to the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Swift in view of Wallick ‘391 or ‘458 and further in view
of Westphal and/or Miller, Appellant reiterates the same arguments
addressed above. Suffice it to say that we conclude, for the reasons
expressed above, that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 35 over these references. Appellant has
not sufficiently rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10, 11, 16,
17, and 35 under §§ 112, ¶ 1 and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as is the
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
-14-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007