Appeal 2007-0470
Application 09/976,997
nonetheless merely noted that the claims depend from an allowable base
claim (Br. 11-12). Such an argument, however, does not rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 4 and 6-8 is therefore sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not established that the
Examiner erred in interpreting post 16f in Radloff as reasonably
corresponding to a locating element coupled to a filler panel body as recited
in independent claim 1. Appellants have also not established that the
disclosure of Radloff does not anticipate the limitations of independent
claim 1. Moreover, Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness for claims 4 and 6-8.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013