Appeal No. 2006-1834
Application No. 09/852,253
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s prima facie case
of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing arguments from Appellant, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent
claims 20, 21, 23, and 25 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 7,
and 8 based on the combination of Petek and Sloane. Although grouped separately by
Appellant (Brief, page 4), the argument by Appellant for each of these claims asserts that
the combination of Petek and Sloane does not provide for a sound board with only two
layers in which the layers are of different types of wood. As we discussed earlier with
regard to independent claim 1, we find in Petek a clear disclosure (column 1, lines 7-13) of
providing a sound board with multiple layers utilizing at least two different types of wood.
We also reiterate our finding of no error in the Examiner’s stated position of obviousness in
view of Sloane to modify the sound board of Petek to have only two layers.
Further, it appears to us, for the reasons articulated in the Answer, that the
Examiner has made a reasonable case for the obviousness to the ordinarily skilled artisan
of selecting from the types of wood disclosed by Petek and Sloane to provide the specific
wood type layer combination set forth in claims 7 and 8. Accordingly, the burden is shifted
to Appellant to overcome this prima facie case of obviousness. We find, however, no
evidence from Appellant on the record before us of any indication of the criticality of the
use of the particular wood type layer combinations recited in dependent claims 7 and 8,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007