Appeal 2006-1080
Application 10/109,343
claims 1, 3 through 5, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jackson in view of Stern, as evidenced by Rajalingam,
Lamport, Rothbühr and Wombles (id. 5-7); and
claims 1 through 5 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Seitz in view of Jackson and Stern, as evidenced by Rajalingam,
Lamport, Rothbühr and Wombles (id. 5-7).
Appellants argue the claims in each ground of rejection as a group
(Substitute Br. in entirety). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed
claim 1 as representative of the grounds of rejection and Appellants’
groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
We affirm.
We refer to the Answer and to the Substitute Brief for a complete
exposition of the positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based
thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported position advanced by
the Examiner that, prima facie, the claimed porous board or fibrous material
having a coating of petroleum pitch or coal tar pitch encompassed by
appealed claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
Jackson, Stern, Rajalingam, Lamport, Rothbühr and Wombles and of Seitz,
Jackson, Stern, Rajalingam, Lamport, Rothbühr and Wombles to one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by
the Examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and
nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007