Appeal 2006-2748
Application 10/123,268
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Mangano U.S. 5,839,955 Nov. 24, 1998
4 Baerlocher U.S. 6,168,520 Jan. 02, 2001
5
6 Appellant contends that the combination of Baerlocher and Mangano
7 is improper.
8 Appellant contends in regard to claims 2, 14 and 27 that the
9 combination of Baerlocher and Mangano does not include a second wheel
10 wherein only a portion of the first wheel and the second wheel is displayed
11 on the video monitor.
12 Appellant also contends in regard to claims 4, 16 and 29 that
13 rectangular wheels would not have been obvious because rectangular wheels
14 are not conducive to spinning.
15 ISSUES
16 Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in combining the
17 teachings of Baerlocher and Mangano?
18 Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in determining that the
19 elements of the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
20 combined teachings of Baerlocher and Mangano?
21 Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in holding that the
22 provision of rectangular wheels would have been an obvious design choice
23 because this choice solves no stated problem and produces no unexpected
24 result?
25
26
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013