Appeal 2007-1722
Application 10/212,919
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Studebaker US 3,620,642 November 16, 1971
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Studebaker in view of a design choice.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that
the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Studebaker. In particular, Appellants assert that: 1) the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is improper because the prior art fails to teach
or suggest the claimed rounded shape of the protrusion and corresponding recess,
and the claimed angle of the surface connecting the protrusion to the liner surface
(Br. 3-4); and, 2) even if so disclosed, the Examiner has not found sufficient
suggestion or motivation to change the reference as proposed such that it would
have led one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the
change (Br. 4-5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013