Appeal No. 1997-3969
Application No. 08/175,052
the invention of these claims is rendered obvious by the
teachings of Akkapeddi and Haines [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants essentially rely on the same arguments considered
above and assert that neither reference teaches the specific
geometry of the tiles or adjacent tiles [brief, page 10].
Representative claim 2 recites a rectangular working area for
the plate, and Haines clearly teaches a rectangular working
area for plate 50 [see Figure 3B]. Therefore, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7 and 18-25.
With respect to the rejection of claims 8-11 based on
Haines and Hirsch, the examiner has explained how the
invention of these claims is rendered obvious by the teachings
of Haines and Hirsch [answer, pages 4-5]. Although
appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection primarily
rely on factors that we have considered above, we will not
sustain this rejection because the examiner has failed to make
a prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner asserts that
Haines teaches all the features of claim 8 except for the step
of back propagating, and the examiner cites Hirsch to meet
this feature. We find the examiner’s rejection insufficient
to establish the obviousness of claim 8. The last five steps
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007