Ex Parte Gueret

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 3, 2009

10766916 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JEAN-LOUIS GUERET
__________

Appeal 2008-45541
Application 10/766,916
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: February 3, 2009
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving a claim to a hinged
box. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Oral Hearing held January 14, 2009.
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

Statement of the Case
The Claims
Claims 1-39 are on appeal2. We will focus on claims 1, 38, and 39,
which are representative and read as follows:
1. A box comprising:
at least one base portion;
a lid; and
a hinge connecting the lid to the base portion;
wherein the hinge comprises:
a first element fixed to the base portion; and
a second element fixed to the lid,
one of said first and second elements
comprising loops and the other of said first and
second elements comprising hooks arranged to co-
operate with said loops, wherein the hinge is
configured to hold the lid in an upstanding position
relative to the at least one base portion

38. A system comprising:
a first base portion including a housing
receiving at least one cosmetic substance, the first
base portion having front, rear and lateral faces;
a second base portion including a housing
receiving at least one cosmetic substance, the second
base portion having front, rear and lateral faces;
a lid; and
a hinge connecting the lid to the first base
portion; wherein the hinge comprises:
a first element fixed to the first base
portion; and
a second element fixed to the lid;

2 The Examiner objected to claims 9 and 13 and allowed claims 17
and 18 (App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

one of said first and second elements
comprising loops and the other of said first and
second elements comprising hooks arranged to co-
operate with said loops;
wherein the first base portion comprises on at
least one lateral face a third element and wherein the
second base portion comprises on at least one
corresponding lateral face a fourth element, one of
said third and fourth elements comprising loops and
the other of said third and fourth elements comprising
hooks arranged to co-operate with said loops.

39. A system comprising:
a first base portion including a housing
receiving at least one cosmetic substance, the first
base portion having front, rear, bottom and lateral
faces;
a second base portion including a housing
receiving at least one cosmetic substance, the second
base portion having front, rear, top and lateral faces;
a lid; and
a hinge connecting the lid to the first base
portion; wherein the hinge comprises:
a first element fixed to the first base
portion; and
a second element fixed to the lid,
one of said first and second elements
comprising loops and the other of said first and
second elements comprising hooks arranged to co-
operate with said loops;
wherein the bottom face of the first base portion
comprises a third element and the top face of the
second base portion comprises a fourth element, one
of said third and fourth elements comprising loops
and the other of said third and fourth elements
comprising hooks arranged to co-operate with said
loops.

3
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

The prior art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Flax US 3,441,033 Apr. 29, 1969
Beasley US 5,115,916 May 26, 1992
Hunt US 5,878,881 Mar. 9, 1999
Vicari US 6,216,899 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Rago US 6,626,432 B2 Sep. 30, 2003
Manougian US 7,047,983 B2 May 23, 2006

Seidler US 2002/0153376 A1 Oct. 24, 2002

The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-21, 24, 26-31,
and 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Manougian and Rago
(Ans. 3-6).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 4-6, 25, and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Manougian, Rago, Flax, and Hunt (Ans. 6).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Manougian, Rago, and Beasley (Ans. 6-7).
D. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26-28, 30-36,
38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seidler and Rago (Ans.
7-9).
E. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Seidler, Rago, and Vicari (Ans. 9).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Manougian and Rago
The Examiner finds that “Manougian discloses a box 210 (see Figure
7) comprising a base portion 218, a lid 216, and a hinge 220” (Ans. 3). The
4
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

Examiner finds that “Rago discloses a hinge 22 . . . with a first element 62
comprising loop materials and a second element 72 comprising hook
materials” (Ans. 4). The Examiner concludes that “because these two hinge
means were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the
hook- and-loop of Rago for the pinned hinge of Manougian” (Ans. 4).
Appellant contends that
it is not reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to make the asserted
substitution with any reasonable expectation of success. The
fact that the alleged hook and loop hinge in Rago may be
effective for securing a game board, does not reasonably
suggest that it is an "art-recognized" equivalent for the
purposes of wired cosmetic case hinges, much less that it
could be effectively used for such a purpose.

(App. Br. 9). Appellant also contends that “it is unreasonable to assert that
Rago constitutes analogous art with respect to the subject matter of the
pending claims” (App. Br. 9).
In view of these conflicting positions, we frame the obviousness issue
before us as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to
substitute the hook and loop hinge of Rago for the cosmetic case hinge of
Manougian?
Findings of Fact (FF)
1. Manougian teaches a “hinged cosmetic container or compact
including a housing or shell . . . Housing 12 includes a first housing member
or lid 16, a second housing member or base 18 and a hinge 20 pivotally
5
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

connecting lid 16 to base 18 for movement between a closed position . . .
and an open position” (Manougian, col. 7, ll. 28-35).
2. Figure 2 of Manougian is reproduced below:

“FIG. 2 is a partially exploded perspective view of the protected cosmetic
container in an open position” (Manougian, col. 6, ll. 40-41).
3. Manougian teaches that “[h]inge 20 can be designed in various
ways and may be formed integrally, unitarily with the lid 16 and base 18 or
as one or more separate mechanical components” (Manougian 11:54-56).
4. Manougian teaches that “the hinge allows the lid 16 to be
oriented at 180 degrees to the base 18 in the open position. Accordingly, the
protected cosmetic container 10 may assume a flat configuration in the open
position, allowing the open protected cosmetic container to be supported on
a flat support surface” (Manougian, col. 11, ll. 64-12:2).
6
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

5. Manougian teaches that “[c]ooperatively engageable and
releasable Velcro securing devices 254 and 256 are provided on base 218
and trays 252, respectively, to removably secure the trays within the wells
236” (Manougian, col. 23, ll. 7-10).
6. Rago teaches a “game board 10 [including] . . . a generally
rigid, form-retaining base member 12 . . . [which has] a center symmetrically
disposed fold line 22 along which the base may be folded in half” (Rago,
col. 2, ll. 20-31).
7. Figure 6 of Rago is reproduced below:

“FIG. 6 is a cross section view” (Rago, col. 2, l. 15).
8. Rago teaches that “[a]t the fold line 22 where the two sections
of the game board meet, the looped Velcro fastener sheet 62 on one section
overlies its edges at 68 and continues down and around the lower surface 16
of the board at 70. The Velcro fastener sheet 62 on the adjacent section
terminates short of the fold lane” (Rago, col. 3, ll. 44-47).
9. Rago teaches that a “hooked or complementary Velcro sheet 72
covers the edge of each adjacent section and a short portion of the upper and
lower surfaces of each section” (Rago, col. 3, ll. 49-51).
10. Rago teaches that “the two sections are not only attached to
each other by the interaction of the loop and hook elements on the Velcro
7
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

sheets 68 and 72, but such connection also permits the two sections to be
pivotally movable between an open and folded condition” (Rago, col. 3, ll.
52-55).
11. The Examiner finds that “Manougian, as modified with the
hinge of Rago, is fully capable of holding the lid in an upstanding position”
(Ans. 4).
Principles of Law
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations of
nonobviousness, if any. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that “the [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, ___, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Id. at 1739. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740. Moreover, an
“[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be
present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301
(CCPA 1982). As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is
8
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. 398, ___,
127 S.Ct. at 1742.
Claim terms are interpreted using the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification. See, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.”). Also see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-56 (Fed. Cir.
1997). (“Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that
appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their
interpretation does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable when the
PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation.”)
The Court found that
an inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for
portable computers would naturally look to references
employing other “housings, hinges, latches, springs, etc.”
which in that case came from areas such as “a desktop
telephone directory, a piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, a washing
machine cabinet, a wooden furniture cabinet, or a two-part
housing for storing audio cassettes.”

In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481 (Fed.Cir. 1994).
Analysis
Manougian teaches a box comprising a base portion, a lid and a hinge
connecting the lid to the base portion (FF 1-2). Manougian teaches that the
hinge may be formed in a variety of ways (FF 3-4) and teaches the use of
hook and loop elements to connect two elements (FF 5). Manougian does
not teach a hinge composed of hook and loop elements (see Ans. 3).
9
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

Rago teaches a hinge composed of hook and loop elements (FF 6-9).
Rago teaches that “the interaction of the loop and hook elements on the
Velcro sheets 68 and 72 . . . permits the two sections to be pivotally movable
between an open and folded condition” (Rago, col. 3, ll. 52-55; FF 10).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the Examiner’s findings
and the findings of fact, the substitution of the Manougian hinge with the
Rago hook and loop hinge represents a combination of known elements
which yield the predictable effect where in Manougian, “hinge 20 preferably
provides a substantial range of pivotal movement for lid 16” (Manougian,
col. 11, ll. 62-63). The combination of the hinge of Rago with the box of
Manougian is merely a “predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. 398, ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “fact that the
alleged hook and loop hinge in Rago may be effective for securing a game
board, does not reasonably suggest that it is an ‘art-recognized’ equivalent
for the purposes of wired cosmetic case hinges, much less that it could be
effectively used for such a purpose” (App. Br. 9). While Appellant focuses
on “wired cosmetic case hinges”, Appellant’s claim is drawn to “a box”
(Claim 1) and not to a cosmetic case hinge as argued in the Appeal Brief
(App. Br. 9). See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of
appellant's arguments fail from the outset because, . . . they are not based on
limitations appearing in the claims”).
Additionally, as noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550
U.S. 398, ___, 127 S.Ct. at 1742. We agree with the Examiner that a “hinge
10
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

is one of the most basic of mechanical elements and the simple substitution
of one known hinge arrangement for another known hinge arrangement is
well within the level of ordinary skill in the art” (Ans. 10).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “it is
unreasonable to assert that Rago constitutes analogous art with respect to the
subject matter of the pending claims” (App. Br. 9). In Icon, the Court found
that
an inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for
portable computers would naturally look to references
employing other “housings, hinges, latches, springs, etc.”
which in that case came from areas such as “a desktop
telephone directory, a piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, a washing
machine cabinet, a wooden furniture cabinet, or a two-part
housing for storing audio cassettes.”

In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481 (Fed.Cir. 1994). The instant
situation is similar to that of Icon and Paulsen, and in the instant case an
ordinary practitioner considering hinges for the “box”of Manougian would
reasonably consider references employing hinges such as Rago.
We also do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that “there is no
showing that a hook-and-loop configuration would be equivalent to a wired
hinge in terms of strength and suitability for use in joining small elements
such a cosmetic cases” (Reply Br. 4). As already mentioned, claim 1is
drawn to a “box” without any limitations regarding the size, weight, or
dimensions (Claim 1). Claim 1 even lacks any “intended use” recitation
regarding cosmetics (Claim 1). The ordinary practititioner, interested in
forming a box based upon the teachings of Manougian and Rago with the
11
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

hook and loop hinge of Rago, would reasonably have selected base and lid
components of appropriate size, weight and dimension.
Conclusion of Law
The Examiner did not err in finding that it would have been obvious
to substitute the hook and loop hinge of Rago for the cosmetic case hinge of
Manougian.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Manougian, Rago, Flax, and Hunt
The Examiner rejected claims 4-6, 25, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Manougian, Rago, Flax, and Hunt (Ans. 6).
Claims 4-6, 25, and 37 depend from claim 1. As we have affirmed the
rejection of claim 1 over Manougian and Rago, and Appellant does not
identify how Flax and Hunt fail to teach the dependent claim limitations, we
affirm the rejection of these claims as well.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Manougian, Rago, and Beasley
The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Manougian, Rago, and Beasley (Ans. 6-7).
Claims 22 and 23 depend from claim 1. As we have affirmed the
rejection of claim 1 over Manougian and Rago, and Appellant does not
identify how Beasley fails to teach the dependent claim limitations, we
affirm the rejection of these claims as well.
D. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Seidler and Rago
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26-28, 30-36,
38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seidler and Rago (Ans.
7-9).
12
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

The Examiner finds that “Seidler discloses a box 30 with at least one
base portion 34, a lid 32, and a hinge 16/18 comprising first element 18 and
second element 16 and capable of retaining the lid in an upstanding
position” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that “Rago discloses a hinge 22 . . .
with a first element 62 comprising loop materials and a second element 72
comprising hook materials” (Ans. 7). The Examiner concludes that
“because these two hinge means were art-recognized equivalents at the time
the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to substitute the hook- and-loop of Rago for the magnets of Seidler”
(Ans. 7).
Appellant contends that it is “unreasonable to assert that Rago
constitutes analogous art with respect to the subject matter of the pending
claims, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
modify Seidler with the teaching of Rago” (App. Br. 10). Appellant also
contends that the artisan “would not have been motivated to replace the
virtual hinge taught by Seidler with the alleged Velcro hinge of Rago . . .
because Seidler specifically states that the virtual hinge axis neither
increases the physical dimensions of the hinge nor physically occupies space
intermediate the plates” (App. Br. 11).
In view of these conflicting positions, we frame the obviousness
issues before us as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to
substitute the hook and loop hinge of Rago for the magnetic cosmetic case
hinge of Seidler?
13
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

Findings of Fact
12. Seidler teaches a “cosmetic case, gnereally designated 30. One
of the plates . . . defines a cover 32 of the case 30 and the other of the plates .
. . defines a base 34 of the case 30, the base 34 and cover 32 being movable
between closed and open orientations” (Seidler 4 ¶ 0049).
13. Figure 4 of Seidler is reproduced below:

“FIG. 4 is a side elevational view . . . with one plate being shown in an
intermediate orientation in phantom line” (Seidler 2 ¶ 0028).
14. Seidler teaches that the “first and second plates 12, 14 are
movable about the hinge axis 20” (Seidler 3 ¶ 0040).
15. Seidler teaches that the plate “is stable not only in the closed
orientation and open orientations relative to the base 34, but additionally in
the single intermediate orientation of FIG. 13 wherein it is generally
transverse (at a right angle) to the base 34” (Seidler 4-5 ¶ 0055).
14
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

16. Seidler teaches that “a third plate 50, as illustrated essentially
identical to the base 34 . . . may be added to the bottom of the compact 30,
thereby increasing its thickness by ½” (Seidler 4 ¶ 0052).
Principles of Law
“A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed.Cir.1992).
“All the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated, including
nonpreferred embodiments, and a reference is not limited to the disclosure of
specific working examples.” In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, CCPA 1972)
(citations omitted). “We will not read into a reference a teaching away from
a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co.
Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Analysis
Claim 1
Seidler teaches a box comprising a base portion, a lid and a hinge
connecting the lid to the base portion (FF 12-13). Seidler teaches that the lid
and base are moveable about the hinge, which may be placed upright (FF
14-15). Seidler does not teach a hinge composed of hook and loop elements
(see Ans. 7).
As discussed above, Rago teaches a hinge composed of hook and loop
elements (FF 6-9). Rago teaches that “the interaction of the loop and hook
elements on the Velcro sheets 68 and 72 . . . permits the two sections to be
15
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

pivotally movable between an open and folded condition” (Rago, col. 3, ll.
52-55; FF 10).
The ordinary artisan, as a person of ordinary creativity per the court in
KSR, would have reasonably combined the hinge of Rago with the box of
Seidler since combination of the hinge of Rago with the box of Manougian
is merely a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. 398, ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.
We do not find persuasive Appellant’s contention that “[i]t is
therefore unreasonable to assert that Rago constitutes analogous art . . . or
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
Seidler with the teaching of Rago” (App. Br. 10). As we pointed out above,
Appellant’s claim 1 is drawn to a “box” and not to a “cosmetic case” or any
other specific item (see Claim 1). Applying the reasonable interpretation of
claim 1 as a “box”, in our opinion, the hinge on the game board of Rago is
reasonably analogous to the hinge of a “box” as taught by Seidler. Just as in
Icon, “an inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for portable
computers would naturally look to references employing other ‘housings,
hinges, latches, springs, etc’”, so too would the inventor in the “box” art
look to references such as Rago which employ different types of hinges. See
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Rago is not
an ‘equivalent’ hinge to the virtual hinge of Seidler, and modifying Seidler
to accommodate the Rago hinge would render Seidler unsuitable for its
intended purpose” (App. Br. 11). While we agree with Appellant that
Seidler prefers the magnetic hinges, Seidler recognizes that “conventional
16
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

physical hinges typically perform well in a variety of different
environments” even if “they have not proven to be entirely satisfactory”
(Seidler 1 ¶ 0003). Replacement of the magnetic hinges of Seidler with
hoop and look hinges of Rago is a predictable variation. See KSR, 550 U.S.
398, ___, 127 S.Ct. at 1740. (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”) Further, as noted
above, Seidler is not limited to the preferred embodiment of magnetic
hinges, but encompasses physical hinges as well. “All the disclosures in a
reference must be evaluated, including nonpreferred embodiments, and a
reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.” In
re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 38
Appellant contends that “Rago does not disclose an element
comprising loops or hooks extending on a lateral face. Seidler teaches a
virtual hinge axis 20 about which the magnets 18, 16 rotate from a face-to-
face orientation to back-to-back orientation” (App. Br. 12).
The Examiner finds that “Seidler discloses four hinge parts 16/18 on
two different ends of a side of the rectangular base and lid (see e.g. Figure
1). Replacement of the magnets 16/18 with corresponding hook-and-loop
elements would also have four parts on two ends of a side” (Ans. 14).
We agree with the Examiner that the simplest substitution of the hook
and loop hinges of Rago into the cosmetic box of Seidler would be to
replace each of Seidler’s two hinges with the equivalent hook and loop hinge
of Rago (see Ans. 14). This substitution would result in the structure of
claim 38, with two hinges lateral to one another (see Claim 38). “A person
17
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR, 550 U.S. 398, ___, 127 S.Ct. at 1742.
Claim 39
Appellant contends that “Rago does not suggest any third section
would be removably connected to the bottom face of either of the two
sections of the disclosed game board” (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends
that “[e]ven when stacked in multiple plates, the magnets depicted in Seidler
are exposed toward a rear face of each of 12, 14, and 50” (App. Br. 12).
The Examiner finds that “Seidler clearly discloses this feature (see
e.g. Figures 9-13)” (Ans. 14).
We agree with the Examiner that Seidler teaches a “third section” that
is removably connected to the bottom face, when Seidler teaches that “a
third plate 50, as illustrated essentially identical to the base 34 . . . may be
added to the bottom of the compact 30, thereby increasing its thickness by
½” (Seidler 4 ¶ 0052; FF 16).
With regard to the third and fourth elements, we apply the same
analysis as discussed above in the analysis of these elements in claim 38.
18
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

Conclusions of Law
The Examiner did not err in finding that it would have been obvious
to substitute the hook and loop hinge of Rago for the magnetic cosmetic case
hinge of Seidler.
E. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Seidler, Rago, and Vicari
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Seidler, Rago, and Vicari (Ans. 9).
Claim 16 depends from claims 1. As we have affirmed the rejection
of claim 1 over Seidler and Rago, and Appellant does not identify how
Vicari fails to teach the dependent claim limitations, we affirm the rejection
of claim 16 as well.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Manougian and Rago. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 14,
15, 17-21, 24, 26-31, and 34-36 as these claims were not argued separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 4-6, 25, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Manougian, Rago, Flax, and Hunt. We affirm the
rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Manougian, Rago, and Beasley.
We also affirm the rejections of claims 1, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Seidler and Rago. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 7-10, 13, 17,
18, 21, 26-28, and 30-36 as these claims were not argued separately. We
19
Appeal 2008-4554
Application 10/766,916

affirm the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Seidler, Rago, and Vicari.
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

Ssc:

OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
20