Appeal No. 2006-2560
Application No. 10/315,422
THE REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 13, 16 through 24, 27 through 30 and 47 through 50 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ranson in view of
Deschamps. Claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ranson in view of Deschamps and Bilbie. Throughout the
opinion we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,
in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 30 and 47
through 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues, on pages 9 and 10 of the brief, that the rejection is improper as
there is no motivation to combine the Ranson reference with Deschamps. Appellant
argues that the proposed combination changes the principal operation of Ranson. On
page 10 of the brief, appellant asserts that Ranson and Deschamps deal with different
types of books and different unrelated problems and as such there is no reason one skilled
in the art would combine the teachings. On page 11 of the brief, appellant asserts that a
primary purpose of Ranson is “to provide a replacement book cover that does not exceed
the cost of originally purchasing the corresponding hardbound version of the book.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007