Appeal 2006-2864
Application 10/211,746
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-4, 14-18 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the admitted prior art (APA) in view of Jialanella.
(Answer 3-5, ¶ 2).
2. Claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
admitted prior art (APA) in view of Jialanella as applied to claim 1, and
further in view of Kreckel. (Answer 5, ¶ 3).
3. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
admitted prior art (APA) in view of Jialanella as applied to claim 1, and
further in view of Ficho. (Answer 6, ¶ 4).
ISSUES
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify known
methods of attaching an object to a surface with an adhesive by rubbing the
surface with an eraser to improve adhesion, because use of an eraser to clean
a surface is well known and conventional. Appellant contends that the
Examiner has not established the requisite motivation to combine or modify
the applied prior art to achieve the claimed invention. The issue before us is
“has the Examiner properly established a prima facie case of obviousness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C § 103(a)?”
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm as to all three grounds of rejection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) At the time of the invention, it was known in the art that “[s]torage
racks for small articles, ranging from pencils and pens to other items such
as paint brushes, cassettes, computer floppy disks, small containers and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013