Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
i. Appellants' position
Appellants reiterates its argument that Slipp fails to disclose "said
entire peg is positioned adjacent to said upper face for storage and packaging
of said apparatus" (Br., 58-59). Appellants contend that Fox fails to remedy
this alleged deficiency in Slipp (Br., 59).
ii. analysis
We reiterate our analysis of Slipp given above and our finding that
Slipp, in fact, discloses the claim limitation that "said entire peg is
positioned adjacent to said upper face for storage and packaging of said
apparatus." Appellants do not contest the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Slipp with the cutout
of Fox "for the purpose of providing a lifting an article" (Answer, 11).
Furthermore, Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of
claims 33 and 34.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 32-34 under § 103(a) as obvious over Slipp and Fox.
E. Provisional obviousness-type double patenting
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 18-19, and 32-34 stand provisionally rejected on
the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 5-
15 of copending Application 09/902,965 (Answer, 11).
Appellants do not contest this rejection.
Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner's provisional rejection
of claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 18-19, and 32-34 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 5-15 of copending
application 09/902,965.
35
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013