Appeal 2007-1677
Application 10/121,491
longitudinal edge provides a continuous sight line? ; and (2) are Francis and
Siero properly combined by the Examiner?1
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM both grounds of rejection presented in this appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Siero discloses an elongate “striplike material for use in spray
painting surfaces” where the material has an adhesive at a first
side and a pattern, exemplified as a checker-type pattern, on the
second side (Abstract; ¶¶ [0001], [0008], [0009], [0010], [0013],
[0014]; and Figs. 1 and 2); and
(2) Francis discloses an elongate strip of foam with an adhesive on
one side finding particular utility as a masking material in vehicle
body workshops (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 8-9; col. 3, ll. 51-56; and col.
6, ll. 3-16).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
1 We note that, for purposes of this appeal, Appellant only argues the
patentability of claim 1 on appeal and does not address the second rejection
of claims 11 and 16 under § 103(a) over Siero in view of Francis and Alef
(Br. 5-6). Accordingly, we limit our consideration and the issues in this
appeal to those involving claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013