Appeal 2007-1179
Application 10/399,984
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gueret in view of Dillon and Sizemore
(Answer 4).
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gueret in view of Dillon, Sizemore, and Suwelack ‘622 (Answer 5).2
Claims 20, 25, and 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gueret in view of Dillon, Sizemore, and Shimizu (Answer
6).
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gueret in view of Dillon, Sizemore, and Suwelack ‘329 (Answer 6).
Appellant contends that Gueret and Dillon disclose patches that are
unitary structures with no detachable components, while Sizemore teaches
rows of uniformly spaced, parallel perforations that would include
detachable components but the components are not of a different shape (Br.
8-9).
Appellant contends that the Examiner does not identify any prior art
teaching or any reasons why one would have been motivated to create the
claimed pack, and it is improper to rely on undefined “basic knowledge” or
“common sense” to reject a claim (Br. 10, citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379,
1385, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and In re Lee, 277 F.3d
1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
2 We assume, for purposes of this appeal, that “Gueret as modified above as
applied to claims 14-19…” in this rejection includes the Dillon and
Sizemore references applied in the rejection of claim 14, especially since
claim 21 depends on claim 14. We also note that the Examiner lists “Gueret
as modified above…” in the rejections infra, thus implicitly including Dillon
and Sizemore (Answer 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013