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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013