Appeal 2007-1909
Application 10/608,290
The Appellant seeks our review of the rejection of claims 1-3 and 11-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bosco and Murray.
ISSUE
The Examiner determined that the claimed apparatus would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
in view of the teachings Bosco and Murray (Answer 3-4). In particular, the
Examiner found that Bosco discloses an apparatus having an arm including “a
second opposed end adapted for insertion in an aperture in the first edge flange of
the repair clamp” as recited in independent claims 1 and 21 (Answer 3). The
Appellant contends that the distal ends of claws 14 and 15 of Bosco are not
adapted to be inserted in an aperture in the first edge flange of the repair clamp
(Appeal Br. 13). The issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that Bosco discloses an apparatus having an arm
including a second opposed end adapted for insertion in an aperture in a repair
clamp.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013