Appeal No. 1999-1661
Application No. 08/801,862
‘distance sensor.” Since the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness has not been rebutted by any persuasive arguments
from Appellants, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1 is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of dependent claim 5, the
representative claim for Appellants’ grouping of claims 5 and
6, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of this
claim as well. We agree with the Examiner that the
indentations 24 which serve as the pivot points for the
movement of wall 22 meet the claimed “supporting wedge”
language of claim 5. Appellants’ argument that a “wedge”
requires a positive structure rather than a “void” such as the
indentations of Kramer are unpersuasive and have no support on
the record. Since all of the limitations of the claim are
suggested by Kramer, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 5, and claim 6 which falls with claim 5, is
sustained.3
In conclusion, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
3 We have not considered Appellants’ separate argument for
patentability of claim 6 in the Reply Brief. Appellants are
bound by the original grouping of claims 5 and 6 in the Brief
which the Examiner relied upon in the Answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007