Appeal 2006-2864
Application 10/211,746
above) and Advisory Action 2.1 The Appellant was sufficiently put on
notice of the basis of the rejection in the Final Office Action, but has not
challenged the truth of the Examiner's assertion that “cleaning [a] surface by
rubbing an eraser against an area is well known and conventional.”
Moreover, we find that the Examiner, in rejecting the claims as unpatentable
over the APA, properly relied on only those portions of Appellant’s
Specification which clearly describe what was known by those of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. Jialanella was cited as
an example of a method in which an eraser is employed to clean a surface.
(Answer 4-5, ¶ 2) and (Final Rejection 2, ¶ 2) (“cleaning the surface by
rubbing an eraser against an area is well known and conventional as shown
for example by Jialanella”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we do not find
Appellant’s argument regarding lack of motivation to combine Appellant’s
APA and Jialanella persuasive in overcoming the Examiner’s prima facie
showing of obviousness.
Appellant does not present any arguments that are reasonably specific
to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that the
Examiner’s findings are sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of
unpatentability of appealed claims 1-4 and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1 We note that the issue of whether the Examiner raised a new ground of
rejection is a petitionable one not subject to our review.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013