Appeal No. 2006-1062
Application No. 10/246,994
As for claim 16, appellant does not contest the examiner’s
legal conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to taper the surface of the paint shield, as
disclosed by Renetta.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, whcih would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007