Appeal 2007-0633
Application 10/132,844
language of the claim needs to be considered, and we find that it has been
considered by the Examiner, but the Examiner did not find it specific enough
a limitation to define/differentiate over the combined teachings of Arya and
Fahey.
For example, we find with respect to Appellant’s argument to painting
a pocket red that this would be “treating” which would “minimize pocket
depth tolerances [by adding more material inside the pocket] and introduce
hardness and strength into surface areas of said one or more pockets [by
reinforcing the material].” Therefore, we find this argument unpersuasive,
and we find it a breadth of claim language issue with generalized functions
which are not specifically defined or limited in the language of the claims or
as interpreted by the Specification. Therefore, we do not find that the
Examiner has been unreasonable in the application of the prior art in the
instant prosecution, and we do not find that Appellant has shown error in the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, and we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
We find that Appellant has not separately argued and we find no
separate headings for other groupings set forth by Appellant. Therefore, we
group claims 2-10 and 31-32 with independent claim 1 and sustain the
rejection of those claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-10 and 31-
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013