Appeal 2007-2419
Application 10/681,413
1 credit unsupported or conclusory assertions). Based on the record before us,
2 it would have been obvious to locate the Masahiko roller in any location
3 along the belt, including on the side of the belt that moves from the supply
4 reel to the take-up reel.
5 This case, while not identical, is reminiscent of Sakraida v. AG Pro,
6 Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976) (known elements rearranged to
7 make new, but obvious, water flush system) and Graham v. John Deere Co.,
8 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (farm plow spring clamp changed from above hinge plate
9 to below hinge plate to make new, but obvious, farm plow implement).
10 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3.
11 F. Decision
12 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
13 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
14 unpatentable over Stevens, Masahiko and Hofmann is affirmed.
15 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
16 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013