Appeal 2007-1596
Application 09/996,707
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) have also been
presented for our review in this appeal:
(1) claims 15 and 19 over Smith in view of either Zabron or JP ‘841
(Answer 4);
(2) claims 15 and 19 over Schnider in view of either Zabron or JP
‘841 (Answer 5);
(3) claims 15-19 over Ross in view of either Zabron or JP ‘841 (id.);
(4) claims 15-19 over Boyle in view of JP ‘841 (Answer 6);
(5) claims 1, 6-11, 22, 24, and 26 over Moore in view of Ross and
either Zabron or JP ‘841 (Answer 7);
(6) claim 12 over Moore in view of Ross and either Zabron or JP
‘841, further in view of Kurtz (Answer 9);
(7) claim 13 over Moore in view of Ross and either Zabron or JP
‘841, further in view of Bowman (id.);
(8) claim 14 over Moore in view of Ross and either Zabron or JP
‘841, further in view of Butterworth (Answer 10); and
(9) claims 2-5, 23, and 25 over Moore in view of Ross and either
Zabron or JP ‘841, further in view of Newhall (id.).
Appellant contends that a prima facie case of lack of written
description has not been established by the Examiner, since the relationship
between abrasion resistance of the foam and water absorption/retention was
within the possession of Appellant (Br. 11, citing the Specification 1:15-27
and 9:20-23; Reply Br. 5-6).
Appellant admits that many of the primary references (specifically
Smith, Schnider, and Boyle) disclose the use of foam padding on certain
surfaces of a produce machine to reduce or eliminate bruising of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013