Appeal 2006-2180
Application 10/752,180
within the first ground of rejection for purposes of argument (Br. 6). 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 Brief and Reply 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 floor cleaner device
encompassed by appealed claim 1 would have been obvious over the
combined teachings of Mendelson and Nagayama1 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 the weight of
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief. See generally, In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from the references,
conclusions of law based on this substantial evidence and response to
1 We note again here that Appellants do not argue Hufton and Blehert as
applied with Mendelson and Nagayama by the Examiner (Br. 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007