Appeal 2007-2606
Application 10/903,376
the "ease of inserting a protective transparent covering in Hull would not be
greater by making the transparent covering flexible" (Reply Br. 6). First,
Appellant's contention does not address the entirety of Examiner's reason for
combining Hull and Wenkman. Second, Appellant has provided no
evidentiary basis for concluding that the alleged relative ease of inserting a
flexible transparent covering in Hull's frame compared to inserting a
nonflexible transparent covering results in a structural difference that
distinguishes the claimed frame from the prior art in a nonobvious way.
Unsupported attorney argument is entitled to little, if any, weight.
As a final matter, we point out that a statement which merely points
out what a claim recites is not considered an argument for separate
patentability for the claim. 37 CFR § 41(c)(1)(vii). Thus, we do not
consider Appellant's statement that "Hull does not disclose (claim 2) a
second pair of molding sections with opposing grooves therein" to be an
argument for the separate patentability of claim 2 (FF 26; Appeal Br. 6).
Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner's response to Appellant's
counterargument (FF 26) that groove 9 in bottom bar 7 and groove 13 in
upper bar 12 of Hull correspond to the second opposing grooves in claim 2
(Answer 15). We also note that Appellant did not contest this finding of the
Examiner in his Reply Brief.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-
8 under § 103(a) as obvious over Hull in view of Wenkman.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the Examiner to reject (i) claims 1, 2, 4
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wiener and (ii) claims 1-8
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013