Appeal No. 2006-2276
Application No. 10/426,594
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief and the reply brief for appellants’ positions,
and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by the examiner in the answer, as
expanded upon here, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants present arguments only as to independent
claims 1, 6 and 8 collectively and separately argue method of manufacture
independent claim 10. None of the dependent claims on appeal have been
argued before us. It is further noted that according to the manner in which
appellants have argued the noted rejection, they have not argued against the
combinability of Schauer with appellants’ admitted prior within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Appellants argue, in effect, that the combination of teachings of
Schauer and appellants’ admitted prior art does not yield the claimed
invention.
The examiner considers the prefabricated molding 12 in Schauer’s
figures as comprising the claimed “a flexible reinforcing sheet.” Page 10 of
the brief asserts that this sheet is not capable of being wound up and
unwound as recited in the claims on appeal. Pages 13 through 15 of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007