Appeal 2007-2463
Application 10/403,555
bandage edge cannot be between the end plate and the securing ring as
claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, Kojima does not disclose nor render
obvious the limitations of claim 17. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of that claim.
Claim 8
We will, however, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Kojima and
Zigler. Appellant did not separately argue the patentability of claim 8 with
particularity. Therefore, Appellant did not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for this claim set forth on page 5
of the Answer. The rejection is therefore sustained.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to claims
1-3 and 6-9. We have not, however, sustained the Examiner’s rejection with
respect to claims 4, 5, 10, and 17. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1-10 and 17 is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013