Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
[Coughlan’s target assembly] with Spector’s ball . . .” (id.). We find no
error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant asserts that “[c]laims 16-18 depend from [c]laim 4, which
stands rejected only as being anticipated by the Conley reference.
Therefore, as the Conley reference does not anticipate [c]laim 4, as
explained above, dependent [c]laims 16-18 are allowable” (Br. 9).
Appellant’s assertion is incorrect. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Spector or Conley (Answer 3; Final
Rejection 2).
Appellant fails to identify any deficiency in the combination of
Spector and Coughlan. Therefore, we summarily affirm the rejection of
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Spector and Coughlan. Claims 17 and 18 fall together with claim 16.
MASON AND COUGHLAN
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Mason and Coughlan. Claims 16-18 are grouped
together (Supplemental Br. 7). Therefore, we limit our discussion to
representative claim 16. Claims 17 and 18 will stand or fall together with
claim 16. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that “Mason discloses the claimed device with the
exception of the target assembly” (Answer 4). The Examiner relies on
Coughlan to make up for this deficiency. The Examiner finds that Coughlan
teaches that it was known in the art to use target assemblies with projectiles
such as those taught by Mason (id.). Based on this evidence, the Examiner
finds “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013