Appeal 2007-2306
Application 10/636,120
solved.’” Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick
Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(emphasis in original, quoting In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In this case, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine Wakeman with Moore “to increase the expansion capabilities of the
telescopic hinge.” (Answer 7.)
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 10 would have been obvious over Wakeman in view of Moore, which
Appellant has not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s position is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence of record. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 13-
15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
PO BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013