Appeal No. 2006-2280 Page 23
Application No. 10/244,011
features except for the adhesive area being provided with a removable patch. The
examiner found that Shrader teaches a flexible pad (20) having adhesive (11) on
one surface to be connected to the other opposing surface when the pad forms the
tube and shows that the adhesive has a removable patch (12). The examiner found
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
sleeve forming fastener of Carpenter and Finegan combined by providing adhesive
with a removable patch, as taught in Shrader, because such modification would
have involved mere substitution of one well-known fastener for another well-
known type, which is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Answer, pp. 5-6. For the reasons set forth in Sections III.A. and III.B. supra, we
find no motivation to combine the teachings of Carpenter, Finegan and Shrader
that would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to the support as claimed.
As such, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 13 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter in view of Finegan and
Shrader.
CONCLUSION
To summarize:
1. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is not sustained.
2. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Shrader is sustained.
3. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-7, 10-12 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Finegan is sustained.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007