Appeal 2007-1017
Application 10/204,997
1 contrary. (FF42.) Lastly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the amount of
2 force, varying the force, and determining the degree of abrasion all relate to
3 the manner of using the claimed apparatus and have not been shown to
4 impart any structural difference over the prior art apparatus.
5
6 CONCLUSION OF LAW
7 On this appeal record, Applicant has failed to show that the Examiner
8 erred in concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the
9 subject matter of the appealed claims obvious over the prior art.
10 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
11 this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR.1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
lp
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL MN 55133-3427
17
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: September 9, 2013