Appeal 2006-0249
Application 10/315,401
stand or falling therewith which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellant.
Claim 35
Appellant argues claim 35 separately. This claim, similarly to claim
8, defines a second sealing strip. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has not addressed this limitation.
We conclude that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claim 35 or claim 36 which is dependent
thereon.
The Rejection over Inoue in View of Osenar
Both the rejection presented by the Examiner and the arguments
advanced by the Appellant in regard to the rejection over Inoue in view of
Osenar parallel those made with respect to the rejections over Inoue in view
of Singelyn, Kühl, and Wozniczka. For the reasons provided above, we
conclude that the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness
over Inoue in view of Osenar with respect to the subject matter of claims 1
and 31, the prima facie case not being sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
The Rejection of Claim 7 further Relying Upon Schmid
To reject claim 7, the Examiner added Schmid to the rejections over
Inoue in view of Singelyn, Kühl,Wozniczka, and Osenar. Appellant
advances no additional arguments over and above those already addressed
above. We, therefore, conclude that the Examiner established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 7 which has
not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007