Appeal 2007-2399
Application 10/896,417
Appellant argues that “[t]he so-called Admitted prior art is disclosed
by Appellant in Appellant’s specification and used by the Examiner in
improper hind sight” (Br. 23).
In our opinion, the Examiner has the better argument. The Examiner
has not relied on hindsight, but has provided a logical reason for combining
the mud protection ring with the assembly of Reinert ‘302 in view of Reinert
‘201. As we find no defect in the Examiner’s reasoning, we affirm the
rejection of claim 24.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
lbg
DOUGLAS G GLANTZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW
5260 DEBORAH COURT
DOYLESTOWN PA 18902-1949
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013