Appeal Number: 2006-3291
Application Number: 10/178,845
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 5-8 and 11-
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis and Vento.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis, Vento and
Izumida.
This claim depends from claim 6 and is not separately argued, nor even
referred to in the Grounds Of Rejection To Be Reviewed On Appeal (Br. 8).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis, Vento and Izumida.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis, Vento and
Riach.
This claim depends from claim 6 and is not separately argued, nor even
referred to in the Grounds Of Rejection To Be Reviewed On Appeal (Br. 8).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis, Vento and Riach.
Claims 21-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis.
Davis’s concavity of 2.5” - .75” = 1.25” is less than one third of the claimed 4”
and Davis’s lower portion height of 17” – 4” = 13” is 30% more than the claimed
10”. These differences are more than that which is reasonably conveyed by the
limitation of “about” in claims 21-23.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 21-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Davis.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013