Appeal 2006-3003
Application 10/390,444
in view of Willius, claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 17, and 23 as unpatentable over
Brozak in view of Mattesky and Willius, and claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16,
and 19-22 as unpatentable over Kump in view of Mattesky and Willius.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed February 3, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments
in the Appeal Brief (filed October 31, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed March
21, 2006).
THE ISSUE
Appellants do not separately argue the claims. Therefore, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 11 to decide
the appeal of each of the rejections, with the other claims so rejected
standing or falling therewith. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that Mattesky discloses the subject matter of claim 11, with the
exception of the product arm member surface being a fluoropolymer surface
(Answer 4). Appellants likewise do not dispute the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious, in view of the combination
of Brozak and Mattesky or the combination of Kump and Mattesky, to
modify either Brozak or Kump to provide a smooth slippery surface to
enhance the appearance and/or functions of the product arm member,
thereby rendering obvious the subject matter of claim 11, with the exception
of the surface being a fluoropolymer surface (Answer 5 and 7).
Accordingly, the only issue before us is whether Appellants have
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in concluding it would have been
obvious, in view of the teachings of Willius, to modify the display hook of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013