Appeal No. 2006-1292 Page 3
Application No. 10/314,742
first stated rejection of the claims on appeal. As such, we take claim 1 as
representative of all the claims rejected within the first stated rejection.
In considering appellants’ arguments beginning at page 5 of the principal Brief on
Appeal, we come to the same conclusion the examiner observes in the Answer that
appellants appear to be in some respects arguing the references in a piecemeal
fashion. Moreover, the approach followed in the arguments at pages 5 and 7 of this
Brief take the position that “because a combination of the Hofmann and Chrones
patents would not render the invention of claims 1, 16 and 20 obvious, the addition of
the Revil patent would not further support an obviousness determination.” Their
arguments which follow focus only on Hofmann and Chrones with only a passing
mention of Revil at the top of page 7 of the principal Brief on Appeal. Thus, appellants
do not appear to be arguing before us the actual stated rejection relying upon Hofmann
and Chrones and Revil in combination.
To the extent that appellants seem to be arguing in the Brief and Reply Brief that
the examiner’s combination overlooks the purpose of the Hofmann socket cover is
misplaced. Page 3 of the Answer sets forth the initial statement of the examiner’s
reasoning and combinability, by first recognizing that Hofmann does not teach a living
hinge and an appropriate space for connecting an electrical conductor when the cover is
closed. The examiner reasons that these deficiencies of Hofmann obviously would
have been cured by the teaching in Chrones. The examiner’s remarks with respect to
the word “integral” to the extent used numerous times in each independent claim on
appeal has not been challenged in the Brief. Moreover, appellants have not challenged
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007