Appeal 2006-2547
Application 10/095,409
Patent 6,237,775
1 pertinent to the problem confronting Appellants by one skilled in the art at
2 the time of their invention" (Reply Br., 11).
3 Again, the Examiner has provided a reason for making the
4 combination, which we find credible and which Appellants have not
5 materially challenged, i.e., to reinforce and support the louver in a specific
6 position. KSR Int'l v Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
7 1396. Furthermore, the Appellants have put forth no persuasive evidence in
8 support of their argument that Meyer is nonanalogous art and would never
9 be considered reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved.
10 Therefore, based on the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of
11 claims 3, 20 and 26 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brandenburg in
12 view of Branz and Rostkowski, as applied to claims 1, 18 and 24 above, and
13 further in view of Meyer.
14 CONCLUSION
15 In summary, the decision of the Examiner (i) to reject claims 24-28
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed, (ii) to reject claims 1, 2,
17 4, 5, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
18 over Brandenburg, Branz and Rostkowski is affirmed, and (iii) to reject
19 claims 3, 20 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
20 Brandenburg, Branz, Rostkowski and Meyer is affirmed.
21 “No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
22 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).”
23 AFFIRMED
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013