Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
wrap plies and depend from claim 22. The combined
references do not show the requirement of claim 22 in
regard to a triangular shaped over-press. Claims 23
and 24 depend from claim 22, and thus should be
allowed.
Thus, for the reasons already indicated above and in the
Answer, we determine that the examiner has established, by
preponderance of evidence, a prima facie case of obviousness
regarding the subject matter defined by claims 23 and 24, which
has not been rebutted by the appellants. Accordingly, we affirm
the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23 and 24 under section
103(a).
CONCLUSION
Based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of the appellants’ arguments and evidence, we
determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily
in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a).
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
59
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007