Appeal No. 2006-0681
Application No. 09/072,412
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 5, 29, and 34 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 5, 29, and 34.
Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to independent claim 5, at pages 9-10 of the
brief, Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s statement that
“Bartlett runs his experiment with different embodiments of an
acoustic guitar.” Appellant then does on to explain why
Bartlett’s nylon and steel string guitars are in fact different
(thus confirming the Examiner’s statement).
Therefore, we find Appellant's argument unpersuasive and we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 13, 30, and 35 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 13, 30, and 35.
Accordingly, we affirm.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007