Appeal No. 2001-0459
Application 09/171,769
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner indicates how he finds the claimed invention
to be obvious over the applied prior art on pages 3-4 of the
answer. Appellant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion,
incentive or motivation to combine the prior art in the manner
proposed by the examiner. Appellant also argues that the problem
solved by the specific claimed extension arrangement positioned
opposite to a coupling point is not taught or suggested by any of
the applied references [brief, pages 3-6]. The examiner responds
that the three applied references are all related to problems
within the contactor art. The examiner also asserts that it
would have been obvious to combine Kuhn and Haas with Pollmann to
enable multiple switching functions to be executed by the
Pollmann contactor and to reduce the size of the device [answer,
pages 5-7]. Appellant responds that the examiner has resorted to
improper hindsight because Pollmann, Kuhn and Haas are all silent
as to a suggestion or teaching for combining these references.
Appellant also responds that the combination of Pollmann, Kuhn
and Haas still fails to teach the extension arrangement as
recited in claim 3. Finally, appellant argues that Pollmann
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007