Appeal 2007-2061
Application 10/319,429
the space when there is only partial penetration into the spacer. Likewise,
claim 26 recites “filling at least some of the openings of the spacer” with a
plastic layer.
We do not understand Appellant’s statement in the Reply Brief that
the Examiner has changed his position regarding the finding that the claims
do not require completely filling the space with the plastic layer. The
Examiner specifically states that the relevant claim recitation “does not
necessarily mean that the plastic layer completely fills the space between the
inner side of the firm outer skin and the reinforcing layer as asserted by
Appellant” (Answer 14, last para.). The Examiner goes on to state that
“[n]owhere does the specification of the present invention teach or suggest
that filling the space between the inner side of the firm outer skin and the
reinforcing layer is meant as a complete filling” (id.).
Appellant’s arguments regarding the § 103 rejections having Kralik as
a primary reference have been adequately addressed by the Examiner in the
Answer. Also, we further note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, since we sustain the rejections of all the appealed
claims under § 102 and § 103 based on Kralik, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013