Appeal No. 2006-2660
Application 10/007,021
Accordingly, we have again considered the totality of the record before us, weighing all
of the evidence of anticipation found in Foster with appellants’ countervailing arguments for
non-anticipation in the brief and reply brief, and based thereon, conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 22 through 53 would have been anticipated as a
matter of fact under § 102(e) (2002).
Appellants submit the same arguments with respect to the ground of rejection of claim 39
over the combined teachings of Foster and Fink, and further contends that Foster would not have
suggested coating the doorknob of Fink (brief, page 5). The difficulty that we have with
appellants’ argument here is that Foster would have described using the coatings taught thereon
on a “lock” which one skilled in this art or one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized
as a door passage set or “doorknob.”
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Foster and Fink with
appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the
claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 39 and 43 would have been obvious as a
matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007