Appeal 2006-2864
Application 10/211,746
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Appellant’s APA to provide the teaching of
attaching an object such as a storage rack to a support surface. (Answer 6,
¶ 5). The Examiner also relies on the APA for a teaching of cleaning any
surface prior to applying adhesive material to that surface. (Answer 7, ¶ 6).
The Examiner takes official notice of the fact that “cleaning [a] surface by
rubbing an eraser against an area is well known and conventional” (Answer
3, ¶ 2). We conclude that these findings are sufficient to establish a prima
facie showing of obviousness.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has repeatedly changed his
reasons for establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the APA and Jialanella in the manner claimed.
Appellant maintains that the Examiner’s arguments have changed since
issuance of the Final Office Action and, therefore, the Examiner should have
withdrawn the finality of the action and issued a new Office Action. (Reply
Br. 2-3). Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly used the
application disclosure as motivation to combine the references. (Br. 4-5).
Appellant also attempts to rebut the Examiner’s obviousness rejections by
arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Appellant’s APA and Jialanella.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the fundamental basis of the
Examiner’s rejections, as stated in the Final Rejection, has not changed.
Compare Final Rejection 2-3, ¶ 2, with the Answer (relevant portions noted
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013