Appeal No. 2006-0811
Application No. 10/323,510
examiner (answer, page 5), including such a storage compartment
with Adkison’s board would have provided a place to store
Adkison’s blocks and cards. The appellants argue that the
retainer serves a valuable educational function (brief, page 12).
Such an educational function is not required by claims 6 and 13.
For these reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in
the examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 13.
Rejection of claims 21, 24 and 25 over
Bingo in view of Hankins, and
claims 17-23 over Bingo in view of Adkison
As indicated above, the rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Bingo is reversed. Claims 17-25 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 16, and the examiner does not
rely upon Hankins or Adkison for any disclosure that remedies the
deficiency in Bingo as to claim 16. Thus, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the methods
claimed in claims 17-25.3
3 The examiner and the appellant should address whether
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007