Appeal 2007-1677 Application 10/121,491 material, and thus is “along one longitudinal edge” to provide a sight line (see factual finding (1) listed above). We also determine the Examiner has clearly identified a reason that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in this art to use the foam material taught by Francis in place of the “striplike material” disclosed by Siero (see factual finding (2) listed above; Answer 5). See KSR, supra. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness, which case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore we affirm both grounds of rejection presented for review in this appeal. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED clj 3M Innovative Properties Company P.O. Box 33427 St. Paul, MN 55133-3427 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013