Appeal No. 2003-0548 Page 9
Application No. 09/370,599
assigned name does not define a structural distinction over the
applied prior art wherein a corresponding structure is simply
denoted by a different name.
Consequently, we agree with the examiner that a prima facie
case of obviousness of the structure of representative claim 40
has been established. We note that no convincing argument or
evidence has been furnished by appellants establishing a
patentable distinction between appellants’ structure, as defined
in representative claim 40 and that of the applied prior art.
Consequently on this record, we shall affirm the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 40 and 41.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 40 and 41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 14-20,
29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and 69-75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sato is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007